
    (68 South. 193)
    No. 21194.
    CAHN et al. v. BACCICH & DE MONTLUZIN.
    (April 12, 1915.)
    
      (Syllabus by the CourtJ
    Apegad and Error <§=^382 — Devolutive Appeai>-B ond — Sufficiency.
    Where the appellants obtained an order for both a devolutive and a suspensive appeal, and the bond for the devolutive appeal was fixed at $100 and for the suspensive appeal according- to law, and the appellants gave bond and security for $4,000, held that the bond, though not good for a suspensive, was amply good for a devolutive, appeal, and that the obtainment by appellants of a subsequent order for a devolutive appeal, and the giving of two bonds to perfect the same, were mere surplusage,
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2036-2041; Dec. Dig. 382.]
    Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; T. C. W. Ellis, Judge.
    Action by Bertrand I. Cahn and others against Baccich & De Montluzin. From judgment for plaintiffs, defendants took a dievolutive and a suspensive appeal, and plaintiffs move to dismiss.
    Motion to dismiss sustained as to the suspensive appeal, and overruled as to the devolutive appeal.
    Johnston Armstrong, of New Orleans, for appellants. Titche & Rogers and E. H. Mc-Oaleb, all of New Orleans, for appellees.
   LAND, J.

Plaintiffs on January 27, 1915, recovered judgment in the court below against the defendants for the sum of $2,500, with legal interest thereon from December 7,1912, and costs.

Defendants moved for and were granted a devolutive and a suspensive appeal from the judgment, and the bond for the devolutive appeal was fixed at $100, and that for a suspensive appeal was fixed according to law. Defendants furnished bond and security in the sum of $4,000. Later, the defendants obtained another order for a devolutive appeal, and filed two appeal bonds for $100 each.

On Motion to Dismiss.

Plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal on the following grounds:

That the bond for $4,000 is inadequate for a suspensive appeal.

That appellants have abandoned the devolutive appeal which they might have taken under the first motion and order, and have attempted to obtain a second order of appeal, and the court a qua was without jurisdiction to grant the second order of appeal.

That the transcript for the second order of appeal is incomplete.

That there is no bond to which appellees can look for their surety, as there are two bonds given for the so-called devolutive appeal, and neither is designated as the bond to which appellees may look.

The bond for $4,000, though not good for a suspensive, is good for a devolutive, appeal. Gilmore v. Meeker, 115 La. 849, 40 South. 244. The .appeal, having been perfected by the giving of the first bond, the subsequent proceedings were superfluous.

It is therefore ordered that the motion to dismiss be sustained as to the suspensive, but be overruled as to the devolutive, appeal.  