Tompkins v. Bernard

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Tompkins v. Bernard

1 Gunby 48

DecidedJuly 1, 1885

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Gunby 48 (Tompkins v. Bernard) 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

Tompkins v. Bernard, 1 Gunby 48 (La. Ct. App. 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

Gunby, J.

A judgment need not be dated; 14 An. 665; but when it is dated and attested by the signature of the Judge, the date of the judgment cannot be corrected by reference to the minutes, which show that the case was tried and judgment rendered several months subsequent to the date of the written judgment. The minutes may supplement, but cannot reform the written judgment.

2. Where there is a patent contradiction between the date of judgment signed by the Judge and the date in the minutes of the rendition of the judgment, parol evidence will be admissible to show which date is correct.

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

Gunby, J.

A judgment need not be dated; 14 An. 665; but when it is dated and attested by the signature of the Judge, the date of the judgment cannot be corrected by reference to the minutes, which show that the case was tried and judgment rendered several months subsequent to the date of the written judgment. The minutes may supplement, but cannot reform the written judgment.

2. Where there is a patent contradiction between the date of judgment signed by the Judge and the date in the minutes of the rendition of the judgment, parol evidence will be admissible to show which date is correct.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Gunby 48, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tompkins-v-bernard-lactapp-1885.