Henri v. Francincues
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 4th Cir., May 18, 1976 334 So. 2d 241; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., January 27, 1969 219 So. 2d 317; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., May 21, 1980 386 So. 2d 928; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., June 29, 1950 47 So. 2d 411; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., April 24, 1919 2 Pelt. 365
Henri v. Francincues, 31 La. 856 (1879).
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Boler v. Day 16 La. 251
Opinion text
On Motion to Dismiss. The opinion of the court was delivered by Manning, O. J. The dismissal of this appeal is moved on two grounds; 1. want of jurisdiction rationematerice. 2. absence of the oral testimony adduced on the trial. Either is good. The amount involved is less than five hundred dollars. No portion of the oral testimony was taken in writing. The counsel fdr both parties were unable to agree on a statement of facts, and the judge, upon being required to do so, was unable after the lapse of *857 many "weeks after the trial to retain more than a vague and general impression of the testimony. The consequence is that the record does not contain the evidence upon which the judgment is founded, and we are thus unable to review it. This has often been held to be good ground of dismissal. Boller v. Day, 16 La. 251 . Roberts v. Benton, 1 Rob. 100 . Clark v. Laidlaw, 4 Rob. 380 . Thayer v. Littlefield, 5 Rob. 152 . Appeal dismissed.