
    (41 South. 648.)
    No. 16,125.
    WELLS et al. v. BLACKMAN. In re WELLS et al.
    (June 18, 1906.)
    Appeal — Suspensive Appeal — Petitory Action — Bond.
    Act No. 22, p. 25, of 1904, provides that the pendency of a suit affecting title to real estate shall not be considered as notice to third persons unless notice of the pendency of such action shall have been registered. The only change made by this law is that, formerly, third persons had to take notice of the pendency of the suit without registry, whereas, now, they need take notice of it only after registry. It follows that the registry of a notice under this act does not have the effect of changing the legal situation as it has stood heretofore, according to which the bond for a suspensive appeal from a judgment dismissing a petitory action need not be for one-half over and above the amount sued for, but only in such sum as the judge may fix as sufficient to secure costs.
    [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 2, Cent. Dig. Appeal and Error, §§ 2235-2240.]
    (Syllabus by the Court.)
    Application by E. M. Wells and others for writs of mandamus and certiorari against W. F. Blackman.
    'Writ granted.
    Robert Persifer Hunter and Francis Rivers Richardson, for relators. Respondent Judge, pro se.
   PROVOSTY, J.

In this case the plaintiffs’ petitory action having been dismissed, the judge of the lower court refused to fix the amount of the bond to be given by plaintiffs for a suspensive appeal, but left plaintiffs to furnish bond “according to law”; that is, to say in an amount exceeding by one-half the amount for which judgment was given. Code Prac. art. 575.

It is well settled that in such cases as this the amount of the appeal' bond must be fixed by the court. Day v. Wright & Bailey, 116 La. 961, 41 South. 223.

But the learned judge a quo answers that, taking advantage of Act No. 22, p. 25, of 1904, the plaintiffs have recorded a notice of the pendency of this suit, and that this has created an incumbrance upon the property of defendant, and that the appeal, by suspending-the effects of the judgment of dismissal, maintains this incumbrance in full force, and that, therefore, the amount of the appeal bond should be “according to law.”

Section 1 of said act reads as follows:

“Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Louisiana, that, on and after-January 1st, 1005, the pendency of an action in any court, state or federal, in the state of Louisiana, affecting the title or asserting a mortgage or lien upon immovable property, shall not be considered or construed as notice to third' persons not parties to such suit, unless a notice of pendency of such action shall have been made, filed or registered, in compliance with this act.”

Said Act No. 22 has brought no change in our law, except that, whereas, formerly, third persons dealing with property involved in litigation had to take notice of the pendency of the litigation without registry (article-2453, Rev. Civ. Code), now, under said act, they are not required to do so, unless the notice prescribed by the act has been duly recorded.

It follows that the plaintiff and appellant is entitled to have the amount of the bond for a suspensive appeal fixed by the court, as. if said registry had not been made.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that a writ of mandamus issue commanding Hon. J. B. Lee, judge ad hoc, in place of Hon. W. F. Blackman, recused, as. Judge of the Thirteenth judicial district court of Rapides, to fix the amount of the suspensive appeal bond in the case of E. M. Wells et al. v. W. F. Blackman, No. 6,316 of the docket of said court.  