Marine Bank & Trust Co. v. Shaffer

116 So. 838, 166 La. 164, 1928 La. LEXIS 1858
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedFebruary 13, 1928
DocketNo. 26941.
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 116 So. 838 (Marine Bank & Trust Co. v. Shaffer) 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
Marine Bank & Trust Co. v. Shaffer, 116 So. 838, 166 La. 164, 1928 La. LEXIS 1858 (La. 1928).

Opinions

On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.

BRUNOT, J.

The grounds alleged as reasons why the appeal should be dismissed are:

That the transcript does not conform to the rules of this court; that it is not correct in that it contains the complete transcripts of three suits other than the one on appeal; that one of said suits has heretofore been before this court on an application for writs of certiorari and prohibition, in another a judgment pro confesso was rendered, and in the third no appeal was perfected from the judgment rendered therein.

The record discloses that the transcript of all of the proceedings had in each of the three separate suits were, on the trial of this suit, offered in their entirety, and, as offered, were admitted as evidence in this ease. We are of the opinion that, unless otherwise directed by counsel, it was the duty of the clerk to include in this transcript the entire record of the case as made up in the court below.

*167 In preparing the transcript the clerk kept the proceedings had in each of the several cases separate by the use of heavy, colored paper, and has properly indexed them.

Mover has not pointed out in what respect the transcript does not conform to the rules of this court. Rule 1 requires that when one or more suits are introduced as evidence they shall be separated from the principal suit and from' each other by colored leaves or paper covers, so as to distinguish them, and each shall be properly indexed. As this has been done, 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

General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Meyers
385 So. 2d 245 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1980)
General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Meyers
377 So. 2d 1355 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1979)
Escat v. National Bank of Commerce in New Orleans
284 So. 2d 832 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1973)
Loe v. Whitman
107 So. 2d 536 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1958)
Walker v. JJ Ellis Lake Providence Furniture Corp.
107 So. 2d 550 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1958)
Skelley v. Accounts Supervision Co.
53 So. 2d 520 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1951)
Gunn v. Credit Service Corporation
46 So. 2d 628 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1950)
Heard v. Motors Securities Co.
177 So. 126 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1937)
Succession of Pena
173 So. 310 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1937)
Giangrosso v. Bernard
127 So. 418 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1930)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
116 So. 838, 166 La. 164, 1928 La. LEXIS 1858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marine-bank-trust-co-v-shaffer-la-1928.