Wren v. Brock

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Wren v. Brock

200 So. 674, 1941 La. App. LEXIS 78

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 4, 1941

DocketNo. 2214.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 200 So. 674 (Wren v. Brock) 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

Wren v. Brock, 200 So. 674, 1941 La. App. LEXIS 78 (La. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

DORE, Judge.

We are informed by the litigants of this case that the plaintiff has appealed from a judgment in her favor recognizing her as an ordinary creditor of the Tangipahoa Bank & Trust Company in liquidation.

We find, after a careful perusal of the transcript, two minute entries referring to judgment being rendered but fail to find any original or certified copy of any signed judgment.

The following records and documents were presumably offered to be filed in evidence and are also lacking and not included in the transcript: (1) Record in the “Succession of Henderson Wren and Re; Minor No. 208 of the Docket of this court”; (2) “Two provisional accounts filed by the Amite Bank & Trust Co., Administrator, and sworn to by PI. S. Weigel, Trust Officer, on June 1, 1929, and a similar account sworn to by Mr. Weigel, Trust Officer, before T. E. Dollunde on the 22nd day of April, 1931”; (3) “Ap7 pointment of the Tangipahoa Bank & Trust Company as the tutor to the minor, and also the appointment of the Guaranty Bank & Trust Company”; (4) “The transfer of the Assets of the Amite Bank. & Trust Company to the Tangipahoa Bank & Trust Company.”

This case cannot be considered and decided by us without these records; especially in the absence of a signed judgment, the very basis of an appeal. We must maintain regularity and consistency in our proceedings and cannot close our eyes to such glaring defects in the transcript.

For these reasons, it is ordered that the appeal be dismissed on our own motion, at the cost of appellant.

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

DORE, Judge.

We are informed by the litigants of this case that the plaintiff has appealed from a judgment in her favor recognizing her as an ordinary creditor of the Tangipahoa Bank & Trust Company in liquidation.

We find, after a careful perusal of the transcript, two minute entries referring to judgment being rendered but fail to find any original or certified copy of any signed judgment.

The following records and documents were presumably offered to be filed in evidence and are also lacking and not included in the transcript: (1) Record in the “Succession of Henderson Wren and Re; Minor No. 208 of the Docket of this court”; (2) “Two provisional accounts filed by the Amite Bank & Trust Co., Administrator, and sworn to by PI. S. Weigel, Trust Officer, on June 1, 1929, and a similar account sworn to by Mr. Weigel, Trust Officer, before T. E. Dollunde on the 22nd day of April, 1931”; (3) “Ap7 pointment of the Tangipahoa Bank & Trust Company as the tutor to the minor, and also the appointment of the Guaranty Bank & Trust Company”; (4) “The transfer of the Assets of the Amite Bank. & Trust Company to the Tangipahoa Bank & Trust Company.”

This case cannot be considered and decided by us without these records; especially in the absence of a signed judgment, the very basis of an appeal. We must maintain regularity and consistency in our proceedings and cannot close our eyes to such glaring defects in the transcript.

For these reasons, it is ordered that the appeal be dismissed on our own motion, at the cost of appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 So. 674, 1941 La. App. LEXIS 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wren-v-brock-lactapp-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack