Audubon Hotel Co. v. Braunig
Citations
- 119 La. 1070
- 44 So. 891
- 1907 La. LEXIS 595
Syllabus
<p>1. Landlord an!> Tenant — Ejectment of Tenant — Suspensive Appeal — Rights oe Tenant.</p> <p>As a lessee, condemned in an action of ejectment to vacate the leased premises, has no right to a suspensive appeal, unless he has set up a special defense and has supported the same by his oath, the trial judge has no authority to grant such appeal unless that condition has been complied with, and hence does not devest himself of jurisdiction to enforce the execution of his judgment by improvidently making an order to that effect.</p> <p>2. Same — Time oe Taking Appeal.</p> <p>Construing Act No. 52, p. 84, of 1900, with section 2157, Rev. St., it is manifest that the right to appeal suspensively from a judgment ordering a tenant to vacate leased premises must be exercised within 24 hours after the “rendition” of the judgment. The lawmaker deals in this instance with hours, .and not with days or parts of days, and allows no delay for the signing of the judgment; and unless it appears that the 24 hours succeeding the rendition thereof include time during which the defendant could not appeal, the appeal must be taken and perfected by giving the required bond within the delay mentioned.</p> <p>3. Same — Bond.</p> <p>The question of the bond to be given for a suspensive appeal from a judgment ordering the vacation of leased premises is regulated by section 2157, Rev. St., and the requirements of that law are not complied with by furnishing an ordinary appeal bond.</p> <p>4. Appeal — Failure to File Bond.</p> <p>An order purporting to grant an appeal, on the applicant’s furnishing bond as required by law, does not devest the trial court of jurisdiction, where no such bond is furnished.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- explaining that where a “claimant has a good reason for not seeking more aggressive treatment, conservative treatment is not a proper basis for rejecting the claimant’s subjective symptoms.”
- finding 7,400 jobs PAGE 9 — FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION GCL in the national economy did not constitute significant number of jobs
- indicating “it would be illogical to discredit Plaintiff for failing to pursue non-conservative treatment options where none exist”
- “Because the ALJ did not specify what ‘more aggressive treatment options [were] appropriate or available,’ it would be illogical to discredit Plaintiff ‘for failing to pursue non-conservative treatment options where none exist.’”
- “Because the ALJ did not specify what ‘more aggressive treatment options [were] appropriate or available,’ it would be illogical to discredit Plaintiff ‘for failing to pursue non-conservative treatment options where none exist.’”
- “Because the ALJ did not specify what ‘more aggressive treatment options [were] appropriate or available,’ it would be illogical to discredit Plaintiff ‘for failing to pursue non-conservative treatment options where none exist.’”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Monroe
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.