Succession of Pilcher

39 La. Ann. 362
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedMarch 15, 1887
DocketNo. 9918
StatusPublished
Cited by33 cases

This text of 39 La. Ann. 362 (Succession of Pilcher) 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 Pilcher, 39 La. Ann. 362 (La. 1887).

Opinions

[363]*363The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Watkins, J.

On Motion to Dismiss.

1st. That the clerk’s certificate is insufficient because it does not recite that the transcript contains “ all the evidence adduced on the trial.”

2d. The transcript is incomplete because it contains no note of evidence, no statement of the facts proven on the trial, and no bill of exceptions, nor assignment of errors filed in this Court.

An examination of the record discloses that the appellant was only, constructively,- a party to the record by newspaper publication of notice, and that he did not actually participate in the trial of the account and tableau of distribution.

Hence his appeal is to be viewed rather in the light of one taken by a third party resting his pietensions to relief upon the face of the papers, the correctness of which he concedes in point of fact, but the legality of which he puts at issue.

“Although a case, the transcript of which comes up without the evidence or any statement of facts, cannot be examined on the merits the court will consider and decide the questions of la/w presented by bills of exception.” 7 La. 173; 12 La. 415; 12 Ann. 332.

Under this view of the case, we have chosen to disregard the technical insufficiency of the certificate suggested — a fault not attributable to .the appellant — and proceed to the examination of the case.

Motion to dismiss overruled.

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

Related

Edco Properties v. Landry
371 So. 2d 1367 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1979)
Modern Appliance & Supply, Inc. v. Sapp
200 So. 2d 363 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1967)
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Bedsole & Shetley
228 F. Supp. 521 (W.D. Louisiana, 1964)
Miller v. Barnes
135 So. 2d 555 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1961)
State v. Peterson
95 So. 2d 608 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1957)
Coast v. Hunt Oil Co.
96 F. Supp. 53 (W.D. Louisiana, 1951)
Ryan v. Barthelmy
32 So. 2d 467 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1947)
W.T. Rawleigh Co. v. Freeland
16 So. 2d 489 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1943)
Elfer v. Mintz
7 So. 2d 416 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1942)
Brinson v. Monroe Automobile & Supply Co.
158 So. 558 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1934)
First Nat. Bank of Shreveport v. Davis
147 So. 93 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1933)
Donohoe Oil & Gas Co. v. MacK-jourden Co.
144 So. 169 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1932)
Streat v. Unity Industrial Life Ins. Co.
140 So. 709 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1932)
Clements v. Luby Oil Co.
130 So. 851 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1930)
Smith v. Henderson
121 So. 227 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1928)
Goldman v. Thomson
3 La. App. 469 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1926)
Posner v. Little Pine Lumber Co.
102 So. 16 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1924)
Henry Rose Mercantile & Mfg. Co. v. Stearns
99 So. 533 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1924)
Toelke v. Toelke
96 So. 536 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
39 La. Ann. 362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/succession-of-pilcher-la-1887.