12635 Precedential Processed

Hutcherson v. Welch

Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit · Filed July 1, 1975 · 316 So. 2d 144

Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., May 29, 1979 372 So. 2d 639; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., March 9, 1982 411 So. 2d 1202

Cited by

Anderson v. Collins 648 So. 2d 1371 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
State v. Nine (9) Savings Accounts 528 So. 2d 676 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
Leger v. Lancaster 423 So. 2d 88 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Lewis v. Ault 401 So. 2d 1252 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Cuccia v. Cuccia 394 So. 2d 840 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Calvary Tabernacle v. Louisiana Central Bank 384 So. 2d 814 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
DeLaneuville v. Duplessis 385 So. 2d 385 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Hanley v. Hanley 381 So. 2d 963 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
Iles v. White 345 So. 2d 1304 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
Bourgeois v. Daigle 340 So. 2d 1063 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Vaughan v. Fair 337 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Conques v. Hardy 337 So. 2d 627 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Succession of Walker 288 So. 2d 328
Hill v. Smith 284 So. 2d 374
In Re Tyson 306 So. 2d 822

Opinion text

316 So.2d 144 (1975) J. R. HUTCHERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant and Defendant in Reconvention, v. Mrs. L. H. WELCH, Defendant-Appellee and Plaintiff in Reconvention. No. 12635. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit. July 1, 1975. Wilson & Veatch by William D. Hall, Shreveport, for plaintiff-appellant and defendant in reconvention. Joseph F. Giglio, III, Shreveport, for defendant-appellee and plaintiff in reconvention. Before PRICE, HALL and MORRIS, JJ. HALL, Judge. This appeal by plaintiff-appellant is from a judgment of the City Court of Shreveport rejecting plaintiff's demands for a balance allegedly due for carpet delivered and installed in defendant's residence and rejecting defendant's reconventional demand for damages. The testimony adduced on the trial of the case was not transcribed. The record does not contain a narrative of facts agreed on between the parties or made by the trial judge in accordance with LSA-C. C.P. Arts. 2130 and 2131. Although both parties have filed thorough briefs arguing their respective versions of the evidence, the testimony taken in the City Court is not properly before this Court for appellate review. The respective claims of the parties present factual issues. Where there are factual issues involved and the record contains neither a transcript of the testimony nor a narrative of facts, there is nothing for appellate review. There being no evidence to review, the presumption is that the judgment of the trial court is supported by sufficient competent evidence. Succession of Walker, 288 So.2d 328 (La. 1974); Hill v. Smith, 284 So.2d 374 (La. *145 App.2d Cir. 1973); In re Tyson, 306 So.2d 822 (La.App.2d Cir. 1975). For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the City Court is affirmed at appellant's costs. Affirmed.