Court Opinion

ID: 9668641
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:20:28.898293+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:46.745551
License: Public Domain

WOODLEY, Judge
(dissenting).
I do not agree that the trial judge abused his discretion in making final the judgment against Ricard and his sureties for $350.00, the amount they contracted to pay in the event Ricard failed to appear at the time set for his trial.
The appellant’s sureties signed the bond in consideration of a fee based upon the amount of the obligation they assumed. The principal’s failure to appear in December 1959 was wilful and accomplished his purpose, which was to avoid a trial and cause his case to be continued and trial postponed for some eleven months.
Art. 439 C.C.P., does not require the trial judge to remit any part of the sum specified in the forfeited appearance bond. It merely provides that the court may at its discretion do so.
The appellants, at the hearing in the trial court, did not request or seek a remission of a part of the judgment nisi forfeiting the $350.00 bond. They sought to set aside the forfeiture.
Appellants in this court do not seek or pray for remission of any portion of the amount for which the forfeiture was made final, but to set aside such final judgment.
It is my position that this court is without authority to require remittitur of any part of the final judgment appealed from, and that a remission of $250.00 of the $350.00 judgment nisi is not justified under the record.