Day v. Bailey
| Decision Date | 04 June 1906 |
| Docket Number | 15,862 |
| Citation | 41 So. 448,117 La. 154 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | DAY et al. v. BAILEY et al |
Rehearing Denied June 22, 1906.
Appeal from Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany; Thomas Moore Burns, Judge.
Action by William G. Day and others against M. A. Bailey and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Dismissed.
Gustave Lemle and Joseph Quintero Gowland, for appellants.
Benjamin Moore Miller, for appellees.
On the Merits.
Plaintiff brought suit, coupled with an ancillary injunction. By an interlocutory judgment the injunction was dissolved, and plaintiff appealed, and perfected the appeal. Later, the suit was tried on the merits, and was dismissed, and plaintiff appealed. In this court, defendant moved to dismiss both appeals, because of informalities. The court found the first appeal, that from the judgment dissolving the injunction, had been regular, and as a consequence overruled the motion to dismiss as to it, but found, on the contrary, that the other appeal, that from the judgment on the merits, was informal, and as a consequence dismissed it. The ancillary injunction comes now to be considered on the merits, and, since the suit to which it was ancillary has been dismissed, there can be done but one thing, and that is dismiss the present appeal, which has now nothing to rest on.
Appeal dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Snow v. Duxstad
...... given in lieu of such order also fell. ( Harrabin v. Iowa. City et al., 142 N. W. (Ia.) 212; Coleman v. Hudson. &c. Co., Fed. Cases No. 2983; Hoyt v. Carter, 7 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 140; Yale v. Baum, 70 Miss. 225, 11. So. 879; Lyons v. Green, 68 Ark. 205, 56 S.W. 1075;. Day v. Bailey, 41 So. 448, 117 La. Ann. 154;. Lewis v. Jones, 67 S.C. 157, 43 S.E. 525, 22 Cyc. 951; Merrimack &c. Bank v. City of Clay Center, 219. U.S. 527; Smith v. Whitfield, 20 So. 1012, 38 Fla. 211; Brevort v. City of Detroit, 24 Mich. 322;. State v. Harness, 26 S.E. 270, 42 W.Va. 414;. ......
-
Cloud v. Dyess
...... See Day v. Bailey, 117 La. 154, 41 So. 448. In the present instance, thus, the intervenor-appellant not only did not appeal from the preliminary injunction entered on July 22nd, nor from the denial on August 17th of his motion to dissolve the preliminary . Page 532. injunction, but also, so far as ......
- State v. C. C. Hartwell Co., Ltd.