Wren v. Brock
Wren v. Brock, 5 So. 2d 323 (La. 1941).
Cited by
- American Adjustment Co. v. Batiste 79 So. 2d 337 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
- Timon v. Timon 69 So. 2d 370 La. 1953
- Tenner v. Griffin 53 So. 2d 806 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
- Smith v. Jones 8 So. 2d 352 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1942
- Wren v. Brock 7 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Sanders v. Wyatt 187 La. 80
- Nunez v. Serpas 198 La. 415
- Stockbridge v. Martin 162 La. 601
Opinion text
FOURNET, Justice. The appeal taken by the relatrix from the judgment of the Twenty-first Judicial District Court having been dismissed ex proprio motu by the Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit because of the lack of certain documents in the record, including the original judgment appealed from (a certified copy of this judgment was in the record), she moved for a rehearing, alleging that the documents had been omitted through no fault of hers or of her attorneys, and asked that the case be remanded to the district court so that the transcript might be completed. This rehearing was denied and the relatrix applied to this court for and was granted a writ of certiorari m order that the judgment of the Court of Appeal might be reviewed. The Court of Appeal was without authority, under the express provisions of Act No. 234 of 1932, to dismiss the appeal in this case without first having granted the appellant “at least two additional days, exclusive of Sundays and holidays, to cure and correct any and all the in-formalities and irregularities” in the record. Sanders v. Wyatt, 187 La. 80 , 174 So. 161 ; and Nunez v. Serpas, 198 La. 415 , 3 So.2d 673 . See, also, Stockbridge v. Martin, 162 La. 601 , 110 So. 828 . For the reasons assigned, the case is remanded to the Court of Appeal, for the First Circuit for further proceedings consistent with the views herein expressed, costs of this writ to be borne by the respondent.