Murrison v. C. Seiler & Co.

Decided May 15, 1870

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1870-05-15

<p>A motion to dismiss an appeal comes too late, if not made within three days after the record is file3. 19 An. 27*5; 2 An. 138.</p> <p>The assignment by the husband of a judgment in his favor, to the wife in payment of her paraphernal claims against him, is a proper and legal transaction. And the fact that the amount of the judgment is far in excess of the amount of the wife’s claim is not sufficient, if the evidence shows that the real \ alue of the judgment is not above that of the claim of ihe wife, to raise ihe presumption of fraud in the transaction. All transactions allowed by law, calculated to protect the interests of married women, are legarded in a favorable light by ihe courts oí this átate.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1870-05-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently April 1950

6 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Taliaferro, J.

¶1There are several grounds on which the dismissal of the appeal taken in this case is asked, hnt the motion to dismiss, it appears, comes too late. The appeal was made returnable to this court on the first Monday of November, 1869. The transcript was filed on the twenty-fifth of October, 1869, and the motion to dismiss, on the eleventh of April, 1870 — more than three days having, in the interim, elapsed. 7 N. S. 271; 2 An. 138; 39 An. 276.

¶2It is therefore ordered that tho motion to dismiss he overruled.