Harper v. Harper
This text of 107 So. 2d 704 (Harper v. Harper) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Samuel B. Harper, alleging that he had been granted a suspensive and devolutive appeal from a judgment granting his wife a separation from bed and board and alimony and that Mr. Robert T. Russ, the court reporter who took down the testimony during the trial of this case, died before he had an opportunity to transcribe his notes, thus making it impossible for appellant to complete the record, filed a motion to remand this case to the lower court for a new trial in order that the evidence may be taken down and brought to this court for inspection and consideration. Appellee admits that the foregoing facts are true and correct, but opposes the motion on the ground that appellant failed to comply with the provisions of Articles 601, 602 and 603 of the Code of Practice.1
Under the provisions of Article 906 of the Code of Practice2 appellant is clearly entitled to the relief sought here. Duprat v. Powell, 162 La. 859, 111 So. 259; Dreher v. Guaranty Bond & Finance Co., 188 La. 421, 177 So. 259. From a mere reading of Articles 601, 602 and 603 of the Code of Practice it is readily seen that they are [706]*706inapplicable where the testimony of the witnesses has been taken down in writing as in the instant case. See Kenabrew v. Schneider, La.App., 45 So.2d 555; St. Romain v. Bordelon, La.App., 77 So.2d 421.
The judgment appealed from is annulled and set aside, and the case is remanded to the trial court to be tried de novo; all costs, including costs of this appeal, to await the final disposition of the suit.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
107 So. 2d 704, 236 La. 458, 1958 La. LEXIS 1320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harper-v-harper-la-1958.