2064 Precedential Processed

Advertiser, Division of the Independent, Inc. v. Tubbs

Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit · Filed June 1, 1967 · 199 So. 2d 426

Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 4th Cir., March 7, 1966 184 So. 2d 70; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., March 11, 1926 3 La. App. 546

Cited by

Slaughter v. Slaughter 499 So. 2d 1123 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Goins v. Goins 437 So. 2d 947 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
Franklin v. Harvill 406 So. 2d 696 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
Le Blanc v. Le Blanc 404 So. 2d 530 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
City of Monroe v. Evans 385 So. 2d 912 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
Chambers v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. 383 So. 2d 46 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Johnson v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. 377 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Les Levy Oil & Supply, Inc. v. Southern Petroleum Transports, Inc. 377 So. 2d 907 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Grishman v. Grishman 322 So. 2d 840 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Pasternack v. Lubritz 280 So. 2d 352 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
Bonck v. Plimsoll Club, Inc. 254 So. 2d 310 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Berard v. American Emp. Ins. Co. 246 So. 2d 686 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970

all 15 citing documents »

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Pearce v. Dozier 181 So. 2d 432
Weaver v. Weaver 181 So. 2d 61
Moity v. Mahfouz 137 So. 2d 513
White v. Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Company 94 So. 2d 95
Anderson v. Southern Consumers Education Found. 196 So. 2d 686
Moity v. Mahfouz 242 La. 625
Tolbert v. Thomas 245 La. 200

Opinion text

199 So.2d 426 (1967) The ADVERTISER, DIVISION OF the INDEPENDENT, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles B. TUBBS et al., Defendants-Appellants. No. 2064. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit. June 1, 1967. Rehearing Denied June 7, 1967. Dragon & Kellner, by Robert Dragon, Jr., Lafayette, for defendants-appellants. William E. Logan, Lafayette, for plaintiff-appellee. En Banc. ON MOTION TO DISMISS FRUGÉ, Judge. Charles B. Tubbs seeks to appeal from a judgment holding him in contempt of court for failing to comply with an order compelling answers to written interrogatories propounded by the opposing party (see C.C. P. Arts. 1511 through 1513 and Art. 1491). In addition to holding him in contempt, the judgment required that Charles B. Tubbs answer the interrogatories, and awarded the opposing party $50.00 as attorney's fees. The opposing party filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, based upon the proposition that no appeal may be taken from a judgment of contempt. We view the mover's contention as well founded. The rule is well established in our jurisprudence that a judgment holding one party in a lawsuit in contempt of court is not a judgment from which an appeal may be taken in the absence of some constitutional or statutory provision allowing such review. Pearce v. Dozier, 181 So. 2d 432 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1965); Weaver v. Weaver, 181 So.2d 61 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1965); Moity v. Mahfouz, 137 So.2d 513 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1961) and authorities cited therein. *427 Likewise, neither that portion of the judgment compelling further answers to the propounded interrogatories nor the order compelling payment of attorney's fees in connection with the contempt rule is appealable, for these orders are either interlocutory, [1] or a necessary adjunct to the unappealable judgment of contempt. [2] To impede the progress of litigation by granting an appeal whenever statutory enforcement provisions of the discovery devices are invoked seems to us a policy most unwise, for the every purpose of discovery devices is to reduce the delays inherent in the enforcement and defense of legal rights. Appellant's remedy, an application to this court for supervisory writs, affords him speedy and ample protection against oppressive or unreasonable sanctions which may be imposed by the lower court during pretrial production of evidence. [3] Being therefore of the opinion that the judgment appealed from in the instant case is one which, under our statutes and jurisprudence, is not appealable, we hereby dismiss the defendant's appeal at his cost. Appeal dismissed. On Application for Rehearing. En Banc. Rehearing denied. NOTES [1] See C.J.S. verbo Appeal and Error, § 120D; Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 657 (Wright ed.). [2] See White v. Louisiana & Arkansas Ry. Co., 94 So.2d 95 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1957), where the court, in a case factually similar to the instant suit, dismissed as un-appealable a judgment of contempt involving an award of attorney's fees. Cf. Anderson v. Southern Consumers' Education Foundation, Inc., 196 So.2d 686 (La. App. 3d Cir. 1967), where we indicated that under C.C.P. Arts. 2083 and 1841 a judgment directing a party to answer propounded interrogatories and compelling that party to pay reasonable attorney's fees in connection with the trial of the rule was a non-appealable interlocutory judgment. [3] Although there are many court of appeal cases stating that the application for supervisory writs in such a situation should be made to the Supreme Court, our Supreme Court has recently indicated that such is not the case and that the courts of appeal may properly exercise their supervisory jurisdiction in cases where the trial courts have exceeded their discretion. See Moity v. Mahfouz, 242 La. 625 , 137 So.2d 514 (1961); Tolbert v. Thomas, 245 La. 200 , 157 So.2d 737 (1963); see also The Work of the Louisiana Appellate Courts for the 1961-1962 Term, 23 La.L.Rev. 239, 395 (1963); Tate, Supervisory Powers of the Louisiana Courts of Appeal, 38 Tul.L.Rev. 429, 432 (1964).