Case Name: Succession of Walter L. VOLAND
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1974-06-06
Citations: 296 So. 2d 406
Docket Number: No. 6257
Parties: Succession of Walter L. VOLAND.
Judges: Before LEMMON, BOUTALL and SCHOTT, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 296
Pages: 406–410

Head Matter:
Succession of Walter L. VOLAND.
No. 6257.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
June 6, 1974.
Rehearing Denied July 3, 1974.
Writ Refused Sept. 20, 1974.
Alcide J. Weysham, New Orleans, for Lydia Voland, plaintiff-appellant.
Jesse S. Guillot, New Orleans, for succession of Walter L. Voland, plaintiff-ap-pellee.
Before LEMMON, BOUTALL and SCHOTT, JJ.

Opinion:
BOUTALL, Judge.
Mrs. Lydia Voland, surviving' spouse in community, filed pleadings seeking the removal of Mildred V. Long as dative testamentary executrix of the Succession of Walter L. Voland and opposes and seeks nullification of certain actions of the executrix. From an adverse judgment, she prosecutes this appeal.
The executrix-appellee has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the personal surety on the appeal bond was determined to be inadequate by the trial court, and that the appellant failed to file timely a new or supplemental bond with sufficient surety as provided in Code of Civil Procedure Article 5124. An examination of the record discloses a new bond, which was apparently misplaced in the record, bearing notation that it was filed on the fourth day exclusive of legal holidays, and so is timely filed. However, we note that the appeal taken is both a suspensive and a devolutive appeal from the judgment dated October 9, 1973, and that the original appeal bond was not filed until November 28, 1973. The security for the suspensive appeal was not furnished within the 15 day requirement of Code of Civil Procedure Article 2123, and this court has no jurisdiction to entertain a sus-pensive appeal. However, the jurisprudence has established that where a suspen-sive appeal is dismissed as not timely perfected, it will be considered by the court as a devolutive appeal. See Jackson v. Hannie, 225 So.2d 385 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1969). We therefore grant the motion to dismiss insofar as a suspensive appeal is concerned, but we entertain the appeal herein as a devolutive appeal. The procedure for testing the sufficiency or validity of the new bond furnished is governed by the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure Articles 5125 and 5126.