We consider a motion to dismiss an appeal that the Court of Appeal sustained. 166 So.2d 46. On application of the appellants, we granted certiorari to review the judgment dismissing that appeal. 246 La. 870, 167 So.2d 678.
On March 19, 1963, plaintiff, General Motors Acceptance Corporation, recovered a solidary judgment in the sum of $1500.00 against Robert J. Blanchard, Robert Polk, and Bert C. LeBlanc, made defendants in rule as sureties on an automobile sequestration bond of Deep South Pest Control, Inc. The three defendants in rule timely filed a motion for a new trial, and the district court rendered judgment on December 10, 1963, dismissing the motion.
The defendants in rule, by formal, written motion, appealed to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, "from the final judgment rendered in the above cause on the 10th day of December, 1963." In that court, the General Motors Acceptance Corporation moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the judgment rendered on December 10th, 1963, refusing a new trial, was interlocutory only, caused no irreparable harm, and was unappealable.
In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal said:
Appeals are favored in law and should be dismissed only for substantial causes. Emmons v. Agricultural Insurance Company, 245 La. 411, 158 So.2d 594; Wischer v. Madison Realty Company, 242 La. 334, 136 So.2d 62.
In Emmons v. Agricultural Insurance Company, supra, we said:
We examine the present appeal in the light of this salutary principle.
LSA-C.C.P. Article 2083 provides:
It is well settled that a judgment refusing a new trial is not appealable. It is not a final judgment and can produce no irreparable injury. State ex rel. Land v. Martin, 207 La. 410, 21 So.2d 481.
Even if we were disposed to construe the appeal motion as taking an appeal from the appealable judgment on the merits rendered against the appellants on March 19, 1963,
We conclude, as did the Court of Appeal, that a fundamental defect mars the appeal. No right of appeal existed as to the appealed judgment. The defect is fatal.
Appellants contend, however, that the appeal should be maintained, because the motion to dismiss was not filed within three days of the return day as required by Article 2161 of LSA-Code of Civil Procedure.
Article 2161, LSA-C.C.P. provides:
Article 2162 states:
In the present case, the appellants clearly had no right to appeal from the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial. Hence, Article 2162 applies, and the appeal is excepted from the three-day limitation of Article 2161. We hold, then, that the appeal was properly dismissed.
For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed. All costs of court are to be paid by the appellants.