In re Seim

35 So. 744, 111 La. 554, 1903 La. LEXIS 558
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedJune 22, 1903
DocketNo. 14,691
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 35 So. 744 (In re Seim) 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.

Bluebook
In re Seim, 35 So. 744, 111 La. 554, 1903 La. LEXIS 558 (La. 1903).

Opinions

BREAUX, J.

Defendant and appellee Mrs. Azelie I-Iandlin moves to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the transcript of appeal is incomplete, in that it does not contain the evidence in another cause numbered 66,202, civil district court, Division A, entitled Mrs. Azelie Handlin v. John C. Dodt et al., which was admitted at her instance, as made to appear from the note of evidence,

Furthermore, that the transcript of appeal does not contain any mention of the fact that August Seim was summoned as a witness in the cause numbered GO,202, civil district court, which is No. 14,619 of the docket of this court. 110 La. 936, 34 South. 881.

Defendant and appellant in the case before us offered record 66,202, entitled Handlin v. Dodt, “with all of the pleadings and all the evidence therein.” The pleadings include all formal allegations by the pariles in which they set up their claims and defenses. In offering the “pleadings” it did not embrace the summons in the case issued to witnesses.

The “evidence” introduced in suit No. 66,-202, civil district court (No. 14,619 of this court) does not cover the summons, and in offering the “evidence” in the case the offer did not include the summons, which defendant says should have been copied as forming part of the transcript of appeal.

We do not think the transcript is incomplete without it; that is, without the copy of the summons showing that Seim had been summoned as a witness. Under the circumstances, therefore, we must decline to dismiss the appeal. The summons should have been specially offered in evidence; then it would have formed part of the record.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is overruled.

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

Related

Thurmon v. Hogg
72 So. 2d 500 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1954)
Morris v. Hankins
188 So. 155 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1939)
Morris v. Hankins
185 So. 518 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1938)
Byrne v. Commercial Security Co.
7 La. App. 667 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1928)
Wilson v. Ferguson
6 La. App. 536 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1927)
Kivlen v. Horvath
113 So. 140 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1927)
Marque v. Kolwe
5 La. App. 541 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1927)
Tensas Delta Land Co. v. Anders
103 So. 522 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1925)
Adsit v. Park
81 So. 430 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1919)
Town of Thibodaux v. Stark
76 So. 806 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1917)
Xeter Realty, Ltd. v. Basler
74 So. 185 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1917)
Gilmore v. Frost-Johnson Lumber Co.
71 So. 536 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1916)
Hirst v. Xeter Realty, Ltd.
70 So. 339 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1915)
Citizens' Bank v. Marr
45 So. 115 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1907)
In re Sheehy
44 So. 315 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1907)
Scovel v. Levy's Heirs
43 So. 642 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1907)
Little River Lumber Co. v. Thompson
42 So. 938 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1907)
Tieman v. Johnston
38 So. 75 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1905)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
35 So. 744, 111 La. 554, 1903 La. LEXIS 558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-seim-la-1903.