52 So. 676 | La. | 1910
Lead Opinion
On Motion to Dismiss the Appeal.
Plaintiffs brought this suit for trespass and they claimed damages in the sum of $5,000.
The case was tried by jury, and verdict was found in favor of defendant.
On this verdict, judgment was rendered on the 15th day of December, 1909, and signed on the 17th of the same month.
The plaintiffs applied for an appeal.
The order granting them an appeal, sus-pensive and devolutive, was signed on the 22d day of December, 1909.
The appeal was made returnable on the 10th day of January, 1910.
On that day, the transcript was filed.
The defendant and appellee moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground alleged: That as the judgment was rendered in favor of defendant and signed on the respective dates before mentioned, and as the bond of appeal
Considering the motion to dismiss the sus-pensive appeal.
Suspensive appeals may be taken within 10 days after the judgment has been signed, excluding Sundays. Code Prae. art. 575.
Deducting December 19th and 26th (Sundays) two days, the time for a suspensive appeal had not elapsed.
If the aj>peal were dismissed because not timely taken for a suspensive appeal, the success of the mover would amount really to nothing.
Beyond question the plaintiffs were within time to take a devolutive appeal.
The bond was furnished in the amount required by the judge a quo.
The appeal is good as devolutive if filed after the 10 days. Reed v. His Creditors, 37 La. Ann. 907; Successions of Keller, 39 La. Ann. 579, 2 South. 553; Chaffe v. Carroll, 34 La. Ann. 122; Dwight v. Barrow, 25 La. Ann. 424.
The appeal was timely taken for a suspen-sive appeal.
Motion to dismiss the appeal is therefore overruled.
Opinion on the Merits
On the Merits.
Plaintiffs prosecute this appeal from a verdict and judgment rejecting their claims, against defendant, for damages.
The case presented by the transcript is as follows:
About the middle of May, 1908, defendant bought, or agreed to buy, a double cottage house, one side of which was occupied by plaintiff, Helmas, with his family, as a tenant, by the month, at $8, and the other side by the plaintiff, Mrs. Healy, with her family, also as a tenant, by the month, at $7. The price of the property was $3,400, and, as plaintiff was buying as an investment he was desirous of putting the premises in better condition in order to get a better return. The cottage, as originally constructed, stood back from the street, with a gallery in front, and was three rooms deep on each side, after which there was an open space, and, then, a two-story back building, with a cistern, on each side, in the space mentioned, a fence dividing the two back yards, and a narrow alley leading from the front along either side of the main building into the respective yards. At some later period, there had been built a room, extending across the front of the house, from the gallery to the property line, with a shed over the banquette, and the front gallery had been inclosed and partitioned, making a little room for each tenement, the other room mentioned not being included in the lease of said tenements, but being called an “office,” and (recently) leased to another party, some of whose effects were still there.
On Sunday, May 17th, defendant visited the premises, accompanied by his architect and his contractor, and they testify to a conversation between defendant and plaintiffs, in which the daughter and wife of Helmas and defendant’s companions are said to have taken part, and the substance of which was that defendant wanted to make some general repairs, which were likely to subject the tenants to inconvenience, and was willing, if they would consent, that they should occupy the premises, rent free, while the work was going on; to which, according to the witnesses mentioned, the tenants yielded a willing consent. . Plaintiffs deny that there was any such conversation, and yet, here and there, we find admissions, inconsistent with such denial, and we conclude that defendant notified plaintiffs that he wished to make repairs, and understood that they were willing that he should exercise his pleasure in the matter, though they, probably, did not anticipate that he intended to make the al
We are, therefore, of opinion that the jury and the judge a quo did substantial justice in rejecting their demands. The verdict and judgment appealed from are, accordingly, affirmed.