Harris v. George W. Signor Tie Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Harris v. George W. Signor Tie Co.

120 So. 663, 10 La. App. 169, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 463

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 12, 1929

DocketNo. 3406

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 120 So. 663 (Harris v. George W. Signor Tie 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

Harris v. George W. Signor Tie Co., 120 So. 663, 10 La. App. 169, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 463 (La. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

REYNOLDS, J.

In this action the court is called upon to determine whether the plaintiffs or the defendants are the owners of certain timber on certain described lands. Various acts of sale and a judgment and an act of partition, all purporting to affect all or some of the timber in controversy, were introduced in evidence and are not in the record before us. The court should not consider the effect of such instruments filed in evidence when they are not in the record. There is no suggestion that appellants are at all to blame for their omission from the record. However, the record is incomplete. Under such circumstances it is the duty of the court to remand the case to the District Court for the completion of the record.

State ex rel. Continental Supply Co. vs. Fontenot, 152 La. 912, 94 So. 441.

It is therefore ordered that the case be remanded to the District Court to the end that the record may be completed.

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

REYNOLDS, J.

In this action the court is called upon to determine whether the plaintiffs or the defendants are the owners of certain timber on certain described lands. Various acts of sale and a judgment and an act of partition, all purporting to affect all or some of the timber in controversy, were introduced in evidence and are not in the record before us. The court should not consider the effect of such instruments filed in evidence when they are not in the record. There is no suggestion that appellants are at all to blame for their omission from the record. However, the record is incomplete. Under such circumstances it is the duty of the court to remand the case to the District Court for the completion of the record.

State ex rel. Continental Supply Co. vs. Fontenot, 152 La. 912, 94 So. 441.

It is therefore ordered that the case be remanded to the District Court to the end that the record may be completed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 So. 663, 10 La. App. 169, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-george-w-signor-tie-co-lactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack