Pasteur v. Lewis

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Pasteur v. Lewis

39 La. Ann. 5

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJanuary 15, 1887

DocketNo. 9762

StatusPublished

This text of 39 La. Ann. 5 (Pasteur v. Lewis) 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

Pasteur v. Lewis, 39 La. Ann. 5 (La. 1887).

Pincite

Opinions

On Motion to Dismiss.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Todd, J.

The ground of this motion is that the appeal was made returnable to this Cdirt on the first Monday in June, 1886, a day when the Court was not in session in this city. Tt is charged that the return [6]*6day was suggested by the appellants’ counsel, and therefore that the illegal return day was imputable to the fault of appellants.

The order for the appeal was rendered on the petition of appellants; and from the copy of the petition in the transcript it would appear that the suggestion of the return day was made by the appellants’ counsel, since that day is mentioned and written in the body of the petition.

It is, however, denied by the counsel of appellants that such was the fact. They state that the petition for the appeal was prepared and signed by them, but that blanks were left therein for the return day and the amount of the appeal bond, and the return day was fixed by the judge a quo on his own motion, — and this is sworn to. They have further caused the original petition and order of appeal to be brought up to this Court, which fully verify their statement and affidavit. They admit that after the order for the appeal was signed they filled up the blanks in their petition to correspond with the order of the court.

Under these circumstances we do not think that the irregularity charged can be imputed to the fault of the appellants. It was the act of the judge.

The motion to dismiss is therefore denied.

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

On Motion to Dismiss.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Todd, J.

The ground of this motion is that the appeal was made returnable to this Cdirt on the first Monday in June, 1886, a day when the Court was not in session in this city. Tt is charged that the return [6]*6day was suggested by the appellants’ counsel, and therefore that the illegal return day was imputable to the fault of appellants.

The order for the appeal was rendered on the petition of appellants; and from the copy of the petition in the transcript it would appear that the suggestion of the return day was made by the appellants’ counsel, since that day is mentioned and written in the body of the petition.

It is, however, denied by the counsel of appellants that such was the fact. They state that the petition for the appeal was prepared and signed by them, but that blanks were left therein for the return day and the amount of the appeal bond, and the return day was fixed by the judge a quo on his own motion, — and this is sworn to. They have further caused the original petition and order of appeal to be brought up to this Court, which fully verify their statement and affidavit. They admit that after the order for the appeal was signed they filled up the blanks in their petition to correspond with the order of the court.

Under these circumstances we do not think that the irregularity charged can be imputed to the fault of the appellants. It was the act of the judge.

The motion to dismiss is therefore denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 La. Ann. 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pasteur-v-lewis-la-1887.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack