Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

347 So. 2d 955

Brown v. Drennan

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided June 30, 1977

Louisiana Court of Appeal · decided 1977-06-30

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently December 1977

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““We agree with that broad jurisprudential rule, but only when the required bond for suspensive appeal actually furnishes security for all appellants and, perhaps, when the required bond for devolu-tive appeal in fact affords security for all costs due by all appellants, i. e., when the appellee in either a suspensive or devolu-tive appeal is afforded the full required appeal security. (Emphasis ours.) “[2] Here, the only security furnished is the bond filed by Schnell, Carbo and Rockwood Insurance. That bond binds its surety only for those three appellants; the bond does not mention Bourg. Thus, as to both the money judgment and costs, the appellee is without recourse against the surety insofar as Bourg is concerned.3 Under these circumstances, the rule relied on by Bourg has no application. Accordingly, we dismiss his appeal.” (Footnote 3. omitted.)”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Martin v. Parish of Jefferson

Relies on Borne v. Bourg · 236 So. 2d 272 - Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Chappuis

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1977-06-30

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1This is a tort action against an independent contractor for injuries sustained by plaintiff while working for the general contractor. It is now before us on defendant’s motion to dismiss the appeal of plaintiff-appellant.

¶2The judgment appealed from dismissed plaintiff’s suit along with that of his employer’s compensation carrier which intervened to recover benefits paid to plaintiff. Both plaintiff and intervenor filed petitions for devolutive appeals within the 60 day delay established by LSA-C.C.P. Art. 2087, the intervenor posted a devolutive appeal bond in the amount of $1,000 as set by the trial court within the 60 day period, but plaintiff did not post a devolutive appeal bond, also set at $1,000 by the trial court, until after the 60 day delay expired. The issue is whether this court has jurisdiction over plaintiff’s appeal under these circumstances.

¶3In Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Chappuis, 236 So.2d 272 (La.App. 3rd Cir.) that court’s jurisprudence was reaffirmed to the effect that only one appeal bond is required for multiple appellants from a single judgment.

¶4This court in Borne v. Bourg, 327 So.2d 607 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1976) recognized the validity of the general rule followed by the Third Circuit but recognized an exception in the case where the defendant-appellant was cast in judgment jointly and soli-darily with three other defendants but failed to post a suspensive appeal bond. In dicta, we said the broad jurisprudential rule requiring only one bond from multiple appellants would perhaps apply when the required bond for a devolutive appeal in fact affords security for all costs due by all appellants.

¶5Here the one bond timely posted by inter-venor afforded security for all costs due by both appellants. On the strength of inter-venor’s bond the record has been prepared and filed in this court. The bond subsequently furnished by the plaintiff was, as a practical matter, an unnecessary duplication of the bond already furnished by inter-venor.

¶6Appeals are favored under the law, and any doubt as to the validity of an appeal must be resolved in favor of an appellant. Considering this principle the circumstances present in this case, the motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.

¶7MOTION DENIED.

/347/so2d/955 · .json · Public domain