
    Copley v. Routh.
    Where farther time has been allowed to an appellant to bring up the transcript, bat it is not filed within the time thus allowed, and no further extension is obtained, but the transcript is subsequently filed, the appeal must, on motion, be dismissed. C. P. 833, S84, 885.
    from the. District Court of Concordia, Gurry, J.
    
    
      Stockton and Steele, for the appellant,
    contended that the transcript might be filed at any time before a certificate was obtained that it had not been brought up, citing 7 La. 350. 10 La. 502.
    
    
      Stacy and Sparrow, for the defendant,
    moved to dismiss the appeal, citing 6 Rob. 69. 7 La. 277. 8 La. 206. 14 La. 203, 292. 16 La. 50. Davis v. Hood, 2 An. R. 453.
   The judgment of the court was pronounced by

Slidell, J.

By the order of appeal, it was made-returnable in New Orleans on the second monday of January, 1847. The transcript was not filed until the 24th of March, 1847. On the 12th of February, 1847, upon application of the appellant, further time, to wit, ten. days, was granted to bring up the transcript. The time so allowed having expired, and no new order of extension having been granted, the appellee, on the 23d of March, 1847, filed a motion for dismissal.

This motion must be sustained. Independent of other considerations, the neglect of the appellant to obtain a further extension after the time granted by the order of 12 February, 1847, is fatal. C. P. 883, 884, 885. Palfrey v. Winter, 8 La. 206. Vancampen v. Morris, 6 Rob. 79. Pond v. Horton, 7 La. Rep. 177. Appeal dismissed. 
      
      The order of 12 Feb. 1847, was made “without prejudice to the rights of the opposite party.”
     