Wren v. Brock

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Wren v. Brock

5 So. 2d 323, 198 La. 1026, 1941 La. LEXIS 1185

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedDecember 1, 1941

DocketNo. 36231.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 5 So. 2d 323 (Wren v. Brock) 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

Wren v. Brock, 5 So. 2d 323, 198 La. 1026, 1941 La. LEXIS 1185 (La. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

FOURNET, Justice.

The appeal taken by the relatrix from the judgment of the Twenty-first Judicial District Court having been dismissed ex proprio motu by the Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit because of the lack of certain documents in the record, including the original judgment appealed from (a certified copy of this judgment was in the record), she moved for a rehearing, alleging that the documents had been omitted through no fault of hers or of her attorneys, and asked that the case be remanded to the district court so that the transcript might be completed. This rehearing was denied and the relatrix applied to this court for and was granted a writ of certiorari m order that the judgment of the Court of Appeal might be reviewed.

The Court of Appeal was without authority, under the express provisions of Act No. 234 of 1932, to dismiss the appeal in this case without first having granted the appellant “at least two additional days, exclusive of Sundays and holidays, to cure and correct any and all the in-formalities and irregularities” in the record. Sanders v. Wyatt, 187 La. 80, 174 So. 161; and Nunez v. Serpas, 198 La. 415, 3 So.2d 673. See, also, Stockbridge v. Martin, 162 La. 601, 110 So. 828.

For the reasons assigned, the case is remanded to the Court of Appeal, for the First Circuit for further proceedings consistent with the views herein expressed, costs of this writ to be borne by the respondent.

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

FOURNET, Justice.

The appeal taken by the relatrix from the judgment of the Twenty-first Judicial District Court having been dismissed ex proprio motu by the Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit because of the lack of certain documents in the record, including the original judgment appealed from (a certified copy of this judgment was in the record), she moved for a rehearing, alleging that the documents had been omitted through no fault of hers or of her attorneys, and asked that the case be remanded to the district court so that the transcript might be completed. This rehearing was denied and the relatrix applied to this court for and was granted a writ of certiorari m order that the judgment of the Court of Appeal might be reviewed.

The Court of Appeal was without authority, under the express provisions of Act No. 234 of 1932, to dismiss the appeal in this case without first having granted the appellant “at least two additional days, exclusive of Sundays and holidays, to cure and correct any and all the in-formalities and irregularities” in the record. Sanders v. Wyatt, 187 La. 80, 174 So. 161; and Nunez v. Serpas, 198 La. 415, 3 So.2d 673. See, also, Stockbridge v. Martin, 162 La. 601, 110 So. 828.

For the reasons assigned, the case is remanded to the Court of Appeal, for the First Circuit for further proceedings consistent with the views herein expressed, costs of this writ to be borne by the respondent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 So. 2d 323, 198 La. 1026, 1941 La. LEXIS 1185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wren-v-brock-la-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack