Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

39 La. Ann. 938

State v. Cole

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided October 15, 1887

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1887-10-15

<p>A decree setting aside a judgment of forfeiture of an appearance bond is theoretically and practically one granting a new trial and is not appealable.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1929

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““It has been repeatedly held that an appeal does not lie from an order granting a new trial.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Shreveport Grocery Co. v. Johnson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1887-10-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Bermudez, C. J.

¶2The appearance bond furnished by the defendant, was declared forfeited and judgment rendered, on his failure to appear when summoned.

¶3The surety thereupon took a rule to have the forfeiture set aside and the bond annulled, alleging various grounds in support.

¶4The district judge, after hearing, merely rescinded the judgment.

¶5From this decree, the State appeals. The appellee moves to dismiss on the ground that an appeal does not lie therefrom.

¶6It is evident that the district judge did not pass upon the validity of the bond assailed by the security.

¶7His action in annulling the forfeiture leaves matters iu the condition in which they stood previous to the motion of the district attorney for the forfeiture of the bond.

¶8The right of the State to further proceedings is admitted by the security and remains unaffected.

¶9Theoretically and practically the distriet judge, after reversing and setting aside his judgment, has simply granted a new trial.

¶10It has been repeatedly held that an appeal does not lie from an order granting a new trial.

¶11The motion to dismiss must prevail.

¶12Appeal dismissed.

/39/laann/938 · .json · Public domain