Automobile Security Corp. v. Vecino

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Automobile Security Corp. v. Vecino

120 So. 427, 10 La. App. 10, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 432

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 11, 1929

DocketNo. 11,744

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 120 So. 427 (Automobile Security Corp. v. Vecino) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Automobile Security Corp. v. Vecino, 120 So. 427, 10 La. App. 10, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 432 (La. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

WESTERFIELD, J.

An order of appeal was granted from an alleged judgment said to have been rendered October 24, 1928.

We .find no judgment in the record. [11]*11There is physically attached to _the transcript, though not a part thereof, a folder, apparently of the sort used in the First City Court to enclose records. On the back of the folder there is written in lead pencil:

“10/24/28 Rule to traverse the answers of First National Life Ins. Co., garnishee be dismissed—S—”

It is insisted that the capital letter “S” in this inscription refers to Judge Wm. V. Seeber of the First City Court and that there is no necessity for any other signature. We do not think so. In the first place there are many names, the spelling of which begins with this letter, and, in the next place, a single letter is not a signature, assuming that other irregularities in the alleged judgment might be overlooked. No appeal can be had from an unsigned judgment. Reneau vs. Brown, 8 La. App. 474.

The appeal must be dismissed and it is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WESTERFIELD, J.

An order of appeal was granted from an alleged judgment said to have been rendered October 24, 1928.

We .find no judgment in the record. [11]*11There is physically attached to _the transcript, though not a part thereof, a folder, apparently of the sort used in the First City Court to enclose records. On the back of the folder there is written in lead pencil:

“10/24/28 Rule to traverse the answers of First National Life Ins. Co., garnishee be dismissed—S—”

It is insisted that the capital letter “S” in this inscription refers to Judge Wm. V. Seeber of the First City Court and that there is no necessity for any other signature. We do not think so. In the first place there are many names, the spelling of which begins with this letter, and, in the next place, a single letter is not a signature, assuming that other irregularities in the alleged judgment might be overlooked. No appeal can be had from an unsigned judgment. Reneau vs. Brown, 8 La. App. 474.

The appeal must be dismissed and it is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 So. 427, 10 La. App. 10, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/automobile-security-corp-v-vecino-lactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack