Black, Sibals & Bryson v. Noe

W.D. Louisiana

Black, Sibals & Bryson v. Noe

33 F.2d 365, 1929 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1320

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Louisiana

DecidedApril 25, 1929

DocketNo. 1784

StatusPublished

This text of 33 F.2d 365 (Black, Sibals & Bryson v. Noe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Black, Sibals & Bryson v. Noe, 33 F.2d 365, 1929 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1320 (W.D. La. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

DAWKINS, District Judge.

The above suit is based upon a judgment alleged to have been rendered by tbe chancery court of Ouachita county, Ark. A copy of said judgment duly certified according to the act of Congress is attached to the petition, hut the defendant has asked that the plaintiff be required to produce and file a copy of the entire record of the Arkansas court.

No pertinent authority has been cited in support of this demand, and the court is aware of none which can sustain it. The Louisiana Code of Practice, art. 175, permite a defendant to require “a view or oyer of the document declared upon,” but this does not, in my opinion, include in a ease like the present the production of a whole court record. I think the judgment itself is sufficient. See Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Harrison, 25 La. Ann. 1.

The prayer or motion should therefore be denied.

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

DAWKINS, District Judge.

The above suit is based upon a judgment alleged to have been rendered by tbe chancery court of Ouachita county, Ark. A copy of said judgment duly certified according to the act of Congress is attached to the petition, hut the defendant has asked that the plaintiff be required to produce and file a copy of the entire record of the Arkansas court.

No pertinent authority has been cited in support of this demand, and the court is aware of none which can sustain it. The Louisiana Code of Practice, art. 175, permite a defendant to require “a view or oyer of the document declared upon,” but this does not, in my opinion, include in a ease like the present the production of a whole court record. I think the judgment itself is sufficient. See Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Harrison, 25 La. Ann. 1.

The prayer or motion should therefore be denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 F.2d 365, 1929 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/black-sibals-bryson-v-noe-lawd-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack