11174 Precedential Dismissed Processed

Bradley & Braud, Inc. v. Canady

Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit · Filed February 14, 1977 · 342 So. 2d 1184

Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 4th Cir., July 30, 1980 387 So. 2d 54; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., March 3, 1969 223 So. 2d 212

Cited by

Standard Mortgage Company v. Gary Dubois Bey, individually and as Trustee of the GDB … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
Fidelity Bank v. the Succession of Geraldine O. Dowden La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
Town of New Llano v. Kay 499 So. 2d 950 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Louisiana Ass'n of Educators v. Concordia Parish School Board 441 So. 2d 9 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Bank of Southwest Louisiana v. Thibodeaux 441 So. 2d 11 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Robertson v. Travis 412 So. 2d 613 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Brannan v. Babin 380 So. 2d 163 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Jones v. Natchitoches Parish Police Jury 371 So. 2d 1243 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Behler v. Louisiana State Racing Commission 251 La. 959
Pettingill v. Hills, Inc. 199 La. 557
Mr. Pizza, Inc. v. Furlow 230 So. 2d 649
Succession of Bongiovanni 187 So. 343

Opinion text

342 So.2d 1184 (1977) BRADLEY AND BRAUD, INC. v. Gerald Lynn CANADY et al. No. 11174. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit. February 14, 1977. John Dale Powers, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff Bradley and Braud, Inc., appellee. Lebranche, Baton Rouge, for defendants Gerald Lynn Canady and others, appellants. Before LANDRY, EDWARDS and COLE, JJ. COLE, Judge. Plaintiff-appellee, Bradley and Braud, Inc., filed suit to enforce a "mortgage" by means of executory process, because of the alleged default on a promissory note executed by defendants-appellants, Gerald Lynn Canady and Deborah Negrotto Canady, in favor of appellee. Judgment was rendered on June 8, 1976, denying appellants' claim for an injunction and awarding appellee attorney's fees. On July 2, 1976. appellants were granted a devolutive appeal from the judgment denying the preliminary injunction and awarding attorney's fees. On the same date, on the motion of the appellee, the trial judge signed a judgment dismissing the suit without prejudice. Counsel for appellee, at the same time, orally advised the court that he wished to waive the attorney's fees awarded. We consider this appeal on the appellee's motion to dismiss based on its mootness. It is well established that appellate courts do not give opinions on moot questions, *1185 that is, abstract propositions which do not arise from existing facts and from which no practical results will ensue. Behler v. Louisiana State Racing Commission, 251 La. 959 , 207 So.2d 758 (1968), and cases cited therein; Pettingill v. Hills, Inc., 199 La. 557 , 6 So.2d 660 (1942), and cases cited therein. Counsel for both appellee and appellants refer to the subsequent seizure and sale of the property under a judgment obtained by ordinary proceedings instituted in a separate suit brought after the dismissal of this action. It is correct that a devolutive appeal from a judgment refusing to grant an injunction is a moot question when the property has already been seized and sold. Pettingill v. Hills, Inc., supra ; Mr. Pizza, Inc. v. Furlow, 230 So.2d 649 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1970); Succession of Bongiovanni, 187 So. 343 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1939). However, the seizure and sale of the property under the judgment obtained in a separate suit is not a matter of record in this suit. Yet, the same principle applies in this case as a result of the dismissal of the executory process action. Because this suit has been dismissed, no practical result can follow from any action we might take on appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. This opinion does not address the question of the correctness of the judgment denying the injunction against the seizure and sale. Accordingly, the action by this Court in maintaining appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal does not negate or affect the appellants' right in an appropriate proceeding to seek any damages that may have arisen as a result of the suit in question. For the reasons assigned, the appeal is dismissed, at appellants' cost. APPEAL DISMISSED.