
    (83 South. 834)
    No. 22042.
    WHITNEY CENTRAL TRUST & SAVINGS BANK v. GREENWOOD PLANTING & MFG. CO., Limited.
    (Feb. 2, 1920.)
    
      (Syllabus by the Court.)
    
    Appeal and error <&wkey;>627(2) — Appeal dismissed WHEEE TRAN SCRIPT IS PILED APTER RETURN DAT.
    Where no extension of time has been granted for the filing of a transcript of appeal, and the transcript is filed more than three days after the return day, a motion to dismiss the appeal must prevail.
    Appeal from Twentieth Judicial District Court, Parish of Terrebonne; W. E. Howell, Judge.
    Action by the Whitney Central Trust & Savings Bank against the Greenwood Planting & Manufacturing Company, Limited. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    See, also, ante, p. 567, 83 South. 832.
    Harris Gagne, of Houma, and Hugh S. Suthon, of New Orleans, for appellant.
    Milling, Godchaux, Saal & Milling, of New Orleans, for appellee.
   On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.

MONROE, C. J.

On April 6, 1916, defendant obtained an order herein for a devolutive appeal, returnable in this court on May 9, 1916, from an order of seizure and sale of date April 14, 1915, and it lodged tlie transcript in tills court on June 1, 1916, or, say, on the twenty-third day after the return day, upon which ground, and another, the defendant now moves to dismiss the appeal. No application for an extension of time for filing the transcript having been presented to, or acted on by, this court, and the law fixing three days as the limit of time beyond the' return day within which a transcript can be filed, without such extension, the motion must prevail. C. P. arts. 589, 594; Untereiner v. Miller, 29 La. Ann. 435; Laussade v. Maury, 31 La. Ann. 858; Coudroy v. Pecot, 51 La. Ann. 495, 25 South. 270; Le Blanc v. Lemaire, 52 La. Ann. 1637, 28 South. 105; Boudreaux v. Boudreaux, 122 La. 433, 47 South. 758.

The appeal is therefore dismissed, at the cost of the appellant.  