Smith v. Atkins

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Smith v. Atkins

40 So. 2d 475, 215 La. 310

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedApril 25, 1949

DocketNo. 39295

StatusPublished

This text of 40 So. 2d 475 (Smith v. Atkins) 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

Smith v. Atkins, 40 So. 2d 475, 215 La. 310 (La. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

PONDER, Justice.

The plaintiff, -appellee, moves to dismiss the appeal in this -c-ase on the -ground that the transcript is incomplete.

. An appeal will -not he dismissed without first allowing the appellant time to complete -the -transcript -in -compliance with th-e provisions of Act 234 of 1932.

Upon submission of the motion to dismiss the appeal, the appellant has filed a supplemental transcript containing -the documents -that the -ap-pell-ee claims were left out of the transcript. On three prior occasions we ha-v-e entertained controversies -between the parties to -this -suit involving the -property in dispute herein. See Atkins v. Smith, 204 La. 468, 15 So.2d 855; Atkins v. Smith, 207 La. 560, 21 So.2d 728 and Smith v. Atkins, 211 La. 369, 30 So.2d 121. It w-as not necessary -to incorporate in the transcript a co-py -of -our opinions in those -cases or portions of ou-r records -in th-e prior -suits -because we can take -cognizance of -our -own -records.

For the reasons assigned, the motion is denied.

O’NIELL, C. J., takes no -part.

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

PONDER, Justice.

The plaintiff, -appellee, moves to dismiss the appeal in this -c-ase on the -ground that the transcript is incomplete.

. An appeal will -not he dismissed without first allowing the appellant time to complete -the -transcript -in -compliance with th-e provisions of Act 234 of 1932.

Upon submission of the motion to dismiss the appeal, the appellant has filed a supplemental transcript containing -the documents -that the -ap-pell-ee claims were left out of the transcript. On three prior occasions we ha-v-e entertained controversies -between the parties to -this -suit involving the -property in dispute herein. See Atkins v. Smith, 204 La. 468, 15 So.2d 855; Atkins v. Smith, 207 La. 560, 21 So.2d 728 and Smith v. Atkins, 211 La. 369, 30 So.2d 121. It w-as not necessary -to incorporate in the transcript a co-py -of -our opinions in those -cases or portions of ou-r records -in th-e prior -suits -because we can take -cognizance of -our -own -records.

For the reasons assigned, the motion is denied.

O’NIELL, C. J., takes no -part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 So. 2d 475, 215 La. 310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-atkins-la-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack