
    POND vs. HORTON.
    Western Dist.
    
      August, 1834.
    APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT, THE JUDGE THEREOF PRESIDING.
    Where the record is not filed in the Supreme Court, on the return day thereof, and no application is made to the court for leave to file it after that day, the appeal will be dismissed on motion.
    In this -case, the appeal was granted on the 27th November,-1833, returnable to the Supreme Court, at Baton Rouge, the first Monday in August, 1834. The first Monday was the third day of the month, and the appeal record was not filed, until the ninth day of the month. The appeal was taken by the defendant and appellant.
    Where the record is not filed in, the Supreme Court, on the return day thereof, and no application is made to the court for leave to file it after that day, the appeal will he dismissed on motion.
    
      Andrews, for the plaintiff and appellee,
    moved to dismiss the appeal on the following grounds:
    1. That the record was not filed on the return day thereof.
    
      2. The transcript of the record, was filed with the clerk after the return day, without leave of the court, or showing cause why it was not sent up in time.
    3. It appears from the sheriff’s return, that a copy of a copy of the petition of appeal, was served on the appellee.
    4. And should this motion be overruled, the appellee denies that there is error to the injury of the appellant; and further says, that the appeal is frivolous, and taken for delay; wherefore he prays the affirmance of the judgment below, with ten per cent, damages, and costs.
    
      Saunders, contra.
    
   Mathews, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

In this case the appellee moves to dismiss the appeal, on the grounds, that the transcript of the record of proceedings was not filed in the Supreme Court, on the day of the return of the appeal, as required by the 587th article of the Code of Practice and that no application was made to the court, for leave to file it after that day, as prescribed by law.

These we believe to be good grounds, in support of the motion to dismiss.

It is, therefore, ordered, that the appeal in this case be dismissed.  