Succession of Bailey

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Succession of Bailey

95 So. 2d 326, 232 La. 824, 1957 La. LEXIS 1232

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMay 6, 1957

Docket42958

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 95 So. 2d 326 (Succession of Bailey) 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

Succession of Bailey, 95 So. 2d 326, 232 La. 824, 1957 La. LEXIS 1232 (La. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

SIMON, Justice.

On the day this appeal was set for argument counsel for the appellant appeared solely for the purpose of informing the Court that no brief had been or would be filed in support of the appeal, and that the case would not be argued. He submitted his appeal on the record, and thus has not pointed out any error in the judgment of the lower court, but has left to this Court the task of ascertaining whether it was correct in law and in fact. Under these circumstances an appellate court may affirm the judgment of the district court under the presumption that it was correct. See Perkins v. Buchler, 223 La. 179, 65 So.2d 130 and authorities therein cited.

Nevertheless, we have examined the record and find no manifest error of law or fact and shall accordingly affirm the judgment.

Accordingly, for the reasons assigned, the judgment of the district court is affirmed; all costs to be paid by appellant.

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

SIMON, Justice.

On the day this appeal was set for argument counsel for the appellant appeared solely for the purpose of informing the Court that no brief had been or would be filed in support of the appeal, and that the case would not be argued. He submitted his appeal on the record, and thus has not pointed out any error in the judgment of the lower court, but has left to this Court the task of ascertaining whether it was correct in law and in fact. Under these circumstances an appellate court may affirm the judgment of the district court under the presumption that it was correct. See Perkins v. Buchler, 223 La. 179, 65 So.2d 130 and authorities therein cited.

Nevertheless, we have examined the record and find no manifest error of law or fact and shall accordingly affirm the judgment.

Accordingly, for the reasons assigned, the judgment of the district court is affirmed; all costs to be paid by appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 So. 2d 326, 232 La. 824, 1957 La. LEXIS 1232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/succession-of-bailey-la-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack