Boyd v. Unity Industrial Life Ins. Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Boyd v. Unity Industrial Life Ins. Co.

144 So. 204

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedNovember 14, 1932

DocketNo. 14222.

StatusPublished

This text of 144 So. 204 (Boyd v. Unity Industrial Life Ins. Co.) 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

Boyd v. Unity Industrial Life Ins. Co., 144 So. 204 (La. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

WESTERFIELD, J.

This is an appeal from a Judgment admittedly correct upon the record as made up below. No testimony on behalf of appellant is in the record, for' the r.eason that the case was tried in the absence of its counsel. An application for a new trial was made, and resulted in the issuance of a ’rule nisi. This rule was also tried and discharged in the absence of counsel for appellant. No explanation of these absences of counsel appears in the record, but we are told in argument that, in the one case, a letter had been1 written to opposing counsel seeking a continuañce'üpon the ground of engagement elsewhere, and, in the other, counsel was somewhat tardy in making his appearance in court, arriving only after the judgment discharging the rule had been rendered. It is not pretended that a legal ground for a continuance existed in either instance, but añ appeal is made here for the remanding of the ease in the alleged interest of justice.

The statements of counsel orally made are unconfirmed by anything in the record, but, if we accept this informal presentation of the matter at its face value, it would not justify a remand.

Consequently, and for the reasons herein assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

WESTERFIELD, J.

This is an appeal from a Judgment admittedly correct upon the record as made up below. No testimony on behalf of appellant is in the record, for' the r.eason that the case was tried in the absence of its counsel. An application for a new trial was made, and resulted in the issuance of a ’rule nisi. This rule was also tried and discharged in the absence of counsel for appellant. No explanation of these absences of counsel appears in the record, but we are told in argument that, in the one case, a letter had been1 written to opposing counsel seeking a continuañce'üpon the ground of engagement elsewhere, and, in the other, counsel was somewhat tardy in making his appearance in court, arriving only after the judgment discharging the rule had been rendered. It is not pretended that a legal ground for a continuance existed in either instance, but añ appeal is made here for the remanding of the ease in the alleged interest of justice.

The statements of counsel orally made are unconfirmed by anything in the record, but, if we accept this informal presentation of the matter at its face value, it would not justify a remand.

Consequently, and for the reasons herein assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 So. 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyd-v-unity-industrial-life-ins-co-lactapp-1932.