Laurent v. Beelman

30 La. Ann. 363
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedFebruary 15, 1878
DocketNo. 6870
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 30 La. Ann. 363 (Laurent v. Beelman) 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
Laurent v. Beelman, 30 La. Ann. 363 (La. 1878).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Spencer, J.

On the thirteenth of March, 1867, plaintiff filed a suit claiming judgment against the defendants separately as joint indorsers of a note. He prayed for citation of each defendant, as usual, and that each of them be condemned to pay Mm one half the note.

A citation issued, addressed to “F. M. Beelman, Parish of St. Charles.” The sheriff’s return states; “Received copies of the within summons and petition accompanying, on the thirteenth of March, 1867, and served the same- on A. J. Beelman and F. M. Beelman, personally,” etc.

...Judgment by default was confirmed against both defendants, and “ signed on the tenth of August, 1867, at chambers.”

On the tenth of July, 1877, plaintiff filed petition to revive this judgment, citing both defendants personally to show cause, etc.

A. J. Beelman appeared and pleaded as cause against revival that the so-called judgment was rendered on default without his having ever been cited, and was signed at chambers and not read and signed in open [364]*364court as required by law. The court below sustained this defense and rejected plaintiff’s demand. Plaintiff appeals.

There is no error in the judgment. Both objections are fatal to plaintiff’s pretensions. A judgment rendered without citation to or appearance of defendant is absolutely null and void. C. P. 612. It is not a judgment. It has no existence. It never drew the breath of life. You can not keep alive that which never existed. This was the view taken by the majority of this court, after much consideration, in the late case of “ Conery vs. Rotchford, Brown & Co.”

It is equally clear that where a final judgment, on default, is not “read” and “signed” in open court, but at chambers, the act is void and does not constitute a judgment. C. P. 543 and 546. A final judgment is the act of a court, and not of a judge only. Unless there is a special statute authorizing it (or perhaps a special agreement, on which we express no opinion), no final judgment can be rendered, read, or signed at chambers. The law says expressly they must be “read in open court,” C. P. 543, and “signed before the adjournment of court.” C. P. 546. There being no judgment, even inform, there is nothing to revive.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed with costs of both courts.

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

Related

Gilbert v. Pearson
478 So. 2d 937 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1985)
Mouliere v. Columbian Carbon Co.
92 So. 2d 308 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1957)
Wilson v. King
79 So. 2d 877 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1955)
Don Roy Motors, Inc. v. Bordelon
77 So. 2d 50 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1955)
Green v. Frederick
136 So. 783 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1931)
Jacobs v. Lagrange
119 So. 538 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1929)
Frankel v. Satterfield
19 A. 898 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1890)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 La. Ann. 363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laurent-v-beelman-la-1878.