Mayfair Sales, Inc. v. Sams

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Mayfair Sales, Inc. v. Sams

154 So. 2d 616

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 3, 1963

DocketNo. 5864

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 154 So. 2d 616 (Mayfair Sales, Inc. v. Sams) 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

Mayfair Sales, Inc. v. Sams, 154 So. 2d 616 (La. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

HERGET, Judge.

Plaintiff, Mayfair Sales, Incorporated, instituted suit against Defendant for the sum of $256.04 alleging Plaintiff to be the holder and owner, for valuable consideration, of a certain check for said amount allegedly drawn by Defendant, which check when presented for payment was refused. Defendant, through counsel, answered in the form of a general denial and, in addition, filed a motion seeking a stay of proceedings. In accordance with the motion an order was obtained on the 8 day of June, 1962 for a rule to issue commanding Plaintiff to show cause on the 18 day of June 1962 why the proceedings should not be stayed until such time as the military service of Defendant no longer hampered his ability to defend himself in the action.

The minutes of the court of June 18, 1962 reveal:

“This rule returnable this day, WHY the case assigned for trial on Tuesday, June 19, 1962 should not be continued until the defendant returned from the military service, was continued until Tuesday, June 19, 1962.”

The minutes of the court of June 19, 1962 reflect the Court ordered that the Defendant be granted a stay of proceedings until his military service is terminated.

A search of the record before us fails to disclose any judgment having been signed by the Court accordingly.

In the absence of a signed judgment in this case the appeal taken by Plaintiff cannot be entertained and, for the reasons stated, we will ex proprio motu dismiss the appeal. LSA-C.C.P. art. 1911. Isom v. Stevens, La.App., 148 So. 270; South Shore Ry. Co. v. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. et al., La. App., 176 So. 678.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the appeal be dismissed at the cost of Plaintiff-Appellant.

Appeal dismissed.

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

HERGET, Judge.

Plaintiff, Mayfair Sales, Incorporated, instituted suit against Defendant for the sum of $256.04 alleging Plaintiff to be the holder and owner, for valuable consideration, of a certain check for said amount allegedly drawn by Defendant, which check when presented for payment was refused. Defendant, through counsel, answered in the form of a general denial and, in addition, filed a motion seeking a stay of proceedings. In accordance with the motion an order was obtained on the 8 day of June, 1962 for a rule to issue commanding Plaintiff to show cause on the 18 day of June 1962 why the proceedings should not be stayed until such time as the military service of Defendant no longer hampered his ability to defend himself in the action.

The minutes of the court of June 18, 1962 reveal:

“This rule returnable this day, WHY the case assigned for trial on Tuesday, June 19, 1962 should not be continued until the defendant returned from the military service, was continued until Tuesday, June 19, 1962.”

The minutes of the court of June 19, 1962 reflect the Court ordered that the Defendant be granted a stay of proceedings until his military service is terminated.

A search of the record before us fails to disclose any judgment having been signed by the Court accordingly.

In the absence of a signed judgment in this case the appeal taken by Plaintiff cannot be entertained and, for the reasons stated, we will ex proprio motu dismiss the appeal. LSA-C.C.P. art. 1911. Isom v. Stevens, La.App., 148 So. 270; South Shore Ry. Co. v. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. et al., La. App., 176 So. 678.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the appeal be dismissed at the cost of Plaintiff-Appellant.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 So. 2d 616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayfair-sales-inc-v-sams-lactapp-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack