
    No. 8206.
    John Rawle, Agent, vs. Mrs. E. M. Feltus and Husband.
    An appeal bond, which does not contain the condition that the appellant shall prosecute the appeal, and which is not given to secure the payment of the costs of both the Supreme Court and the inferior Court, is defective and invalid.
    
      APPEAL from the Ninth Judicial District Hough, J. Court, parish of Tensas.
    
      Steele & Garrett for Plaintiff and Appellee:
    In a bond for appeal, the condition that “the appellant shall prosecute his appeal ” is material, and its omission will authorize the dismissal of the appeal. C. P. 579; 27 An. 645; 22 An. 296; 2 An. 1013.
    "When the condition of an appeal bond for a devolutive appeal is only for payment of the costs of the appeal, the appeal should be dismissed. 28 An. 805; 13 An. 417; 3 An. 135, and C. P. 578.
    The defect in the original bond cannot be cured by substitution of another bond after motion made to dismiss the appeal. 13 An. 417.
    
      Gllnton & Young for Defendants and Appellants.
   On Motion to Dismiss.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Todd, J.

The appellee moves to dismiss the appeal on the grounds, substantially,:

“ That the bond does not set forth in substance that it is given as surety; that the appellant will prosecute his appeal, and satisfy whatever judgment should be rendered against him.”

The sole condition expressed in the appeal bond in this case is as follows:

“ The condition of this obligation is such, that if the above bound Mrs. Feltus shall pay the costs of said appeal, then this obligation to be null and void.”

The bond, which is executed for a devolutive appeal, is fatally defective for want of compliance with the legal requisites prescribed by Arts. 578 and 579 C. P.

1. It must be given as surety that the appeal will be prosecuted. 2 An. 1013; 27 An. 645.

2. It must be given to secure the payment of the costs, both of the Supreme Court and the inferior court. C. P. 578; 4 An. 3; 13 An. 417; 28 An. 805.

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed at the appellants’ costs.  