Duprat v. Powell
Duprat v. Powell, 111 So. 259 (La. 1927).
Cited by
- Harper v. Harper 107 So. 2d 704 La. 1958
- American Adjustment Co. v. Batiste 79 So. 2d 337 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
- St. Romain v. Bordelon 77 So. 2d 420 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
- Kenabrew v. Schneider 45 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
- Dreher v. Guaranty Bond & Finance Co. 177 So. 259 La. 1937
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Rhodes v. Cooper 113 La. 600
- Martinez v. New Orleans City Railroad 23 La. Ann. 28
- 5 La. Ann. 602 not in our corpus
- 3 La. 360 not in our corpus
- Walden v. Parrish 7 La. 245
Opinion text
ST. PAUL, J. Plaintiff, a wife, sued defendant, her husband, for a ^separation from bed and board. There was judgment below in her favor, and defendant appealed. I. Pending the preparation of the transcript of appeal, and before the stenographic note of the evidence taken on the trial had' been transcribed, the stenographer by whom said evidence had been taken down departed this life. Hence the transcript contains no note of evidence, and is therefore incomplete, but without fault attributable to the appellant. Appellant therefore moves to remand the case for a trial de novo; to the end that the evidence may be taken down and brought to this court for inspection and consideration. II. We think appellant is entitled to such relief. The Code of Practice provides as follows: “Art. 906: But if the [Supreme or appellate) court shall think it not possible to pronounce definitively on the cause, in the state in which it is, either because the parties have failed to adduce the necessary testimony, or because the inferior court refused to receive it, or otherwise, it may, according to circumstances, remand the cause to the lower court, with instructions as to the testimony which it shall receive, to the end that it may decide according to law." And in Rhodes v. Cooper, 113 La. 600 , 37 So. 527 , this court held that under this article the appellate court has authority to remand any ease when the condition of the record is such, in its opinion, as will not enable it to pass upon the issues submitted to it intelligently and with justice to all parties. Hence, where evidence taken in the trial of a case and necessary for a decision thereof, had been destroyed by fire without fault on the part of the appellant, this court set aside the judgment and remanded the ease for a trial de novo. Hiller v. Shotwell, 3S La. Ann. 103. Hence also the judgment was set aside and the case remanded for a trial de novo where the testimony had been lost (Martinez v. R. R. Co., 23 La. Ann. 28 ; Lyons v. Andrews. 5 La. Ann. 602 ; Evins v. Murphy, 11 Rob. 477 ), or where by reason of the death or neglect of the trial judge no statement of facts could be obtained. Dolliole v. Azenia, 3 La. 360 ; McDaniel v. Insall, 7 La. 245 ; Porter v. Dugat, 9 Mart. (O. S.) 121 . Decree. The judgment appealed from is therefore set aside, and the case is now remanded for trial de novo.