Case Name: Mary Elizabeth Curtis FAUST v. Helen CURTIS et al.
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1973-05-30
Citations: 278 So. 2d 875
Docket Number: No. 9395
Parties: Mary Elizabeth Curtis FAUST v. Helen CURTIS et al.
Judges: Before LOTTINGER, ELLIS and CRAIN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 278
Pages: 875–878

Head Matter:
Mary Elizabeth Curtis FAUST v. Helen CURTIS et al.
No. 9395.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
May 30, 1973.
Edward B. Dufreche, Ponchatoula, for appellant.
Iddo Pittman, Jr., Hammond, for appel-lees.
Before LOTTINGER, ELLIS and CRAIN, JJ.

Opinion:
ELLIS, Judge:
This is a suit by plaintiff Mary Elizabeth Curtis Faust in which she is seeking to gain possession of certain movable property allegedly belonging to her. Defendants are her mother, Helen Curtis, her aunt, Leona Addison, and her brother, Arthur Curtis, who are alleged to have possession of the said property. After trial on the merits, judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff, and defendants have appealed.
ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendants moved for a suspensive appeal from the judgment of September 25, 1972, and the appeal was granted on September 29, 1972, ordering a bond of $300.00 for the appeal. The bond was filed on October 13, 1972.
On November 8, 1972, plaintiff moved to have the bond declared insufficient and the suspensive appeal revoked. On December 1, 1972, a hearing was held on the above motion, and the court ordered the defendants to post a bond of $4,000.00 for the suspensive appeal. The bond was posted on December 12, 1972.
Plaintiff has now filed a motion to dismiss the suspensive appeal on the ground that the second bond was not filed within the delay provided by Article 5124 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides:
"Within four days, exclusive of legal holidays, of the rendition of judgment holding the original bond insufficient or invalid, or at any time if no rule to test the original bond has been filed, the party furnishing it may correct any defects therein by furnishing a new or supple mental bond, with either the same surety if solvent, or a new or additional surety.
"The new supplemental bond is retroactive to the date the original bond was furnished, and maintains in effect the order, judgment, writ, mandate, or process conditioned on the furnishing of security."
Since the new bond was filed after the four day delay had expired, the sus-pensive appeal is not valid, and must be dismissed. However, both bonds are timely and adequate to maintain this appeal as a devolutive appeal.
Defendants' appeal is therefore dismissed as a suspensive appeal, but maintained as a devolutive appeal.