Mitchell v. Shreveport Creosoting Co.
Mitchell v. Shreveport Creosoting Co., 49 So. 655 (La. 1909).
Cited by
- Wicker v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance 205 So. 2d 175 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
- Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Callicott 83 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
- Cox v. Gross 47 So. 2d 102 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
- Mossler Acceptance Co. v. Moliere 181 So. 228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
- Vivian State Bank v. Holcomb 127 So. 410 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
- Hotard v. Dupont 1 La. App. 646 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
- State ex rel. Hodge v. Oliver 78 So. 439 La. 1918
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Nicholls v. Maddox 52 La. Ann. 496
- Hauch v. E. C. Drew Inv. Co. 116 La. 488
Opinion text
NICHOLLS, J. This suit is one for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been received from the fault and negligence of the defendant. The defendant excepted that plaintiff’s petition disclosed no cause of action. A copy of the exception is in the transcript. The minutes of October 21, 1908, show under the title of the case the filing of that exception; those of November 18, 1908, that that exception was argued. Those of December 2d contain the following entry: “Moses Mitchell v. Exception sustained. (See decree.)” “Shreveport Creosoting Company.” We find no decree in the record. Plaintiff has taken an appeal. In the bond executed by the plaintiff it is recited that plaintiff has taken an appeal from the judgment lately rendered in the First judicial district court for the parish of Caddo in *959 the case of Moses Mitchell v. Shreveport Creosoting Company, Limited. Defendant has moved to dismiss the appeal taken on the ground that, while it appeals “from the minutes kept by the clerk that the exception of no cause of action was sustained,” no judgment was written nor signed by the court. Defendant urges that a minute entry purporting to be the clerk’s recital of the court’s action in sustaining a demurrer to a petition does not show a sufficient judgment to authorize an appeal or a review. Counsel cite Richter v. Koopman, 131 Ala. 399 , 31 South. 32 ; Cowan v. Campbell, 131 Ala. 214 , 31 South. 429 ; Ferrell v. City of Opelika, 144 Ala. 135 , 39 South. 249 ; Gabbart & Co. v. Bauer (Miss.) 38 South. 548 ; Wallace v. Crosthwait, 139 Ala. 529 , 36 South. 622 . He contends that when a judgment sustaining an exception of no cause of action has been rendered, no appeal therefrom can be sustained until it has been written out and signed. In support of that position, he refers to 2 Century Digest, tit. “App. & Error,” § 1S77; Nicholls v. Maddox, 52 La. Ann. 496 , 26 South. 994 ; Hauch v. E. C. Drew Co., 116 La. 488 , 40 South. 847 . Appellant has not argued this motion nor submitted a brief. The motion to dismiss is well founded. The appeal is hereby dismissed.