Hanks v. Alexander
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., December 5, 1934 157 So. 772
Hanks v. Alexander, 154 So. 374 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934).
Cited by
- State ex rel. Poche v. Police Jury of St. James Parish 109 So. 2d 83 La. 1959
- Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Callicott 83 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
- Perrodin v. Tillson 52 So. 2d 306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
- Hanks v. Alexander 157 So. 772 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- James v. St. Charles Hotel Co. 145 La. 1004
- Sears v. Bearsh 7 La. Ann. 539
- Dupre v. Mouton 23 La. Ann. 543
- Phillips v. Her Creditors 35 La. Ann. 935
- Gagneaux v. Desonier 104 La. 648
- 29 So. 282 not in our corpus
Opinion text
MILLS, Judge. The defendants in this action are W. R. Alexander and R. C. Alexander. Through different counsel they filed separate exceptions of no cause or right of action. The minutes recite that the exception as to W. R. Alexander was sustained September 9,1933. They do not show that any judgment was ever signed. The similar exception as to R. C. Alexander was sustained December 6, 1933, and judgment as to him only was read and signed the following day. Appeals lie from final judgments. Article 565, Code of Practice. No judgment is final until it is signed. Hence no appeal lies from an unsigned judgment. A judgment sustaining an exception of no cause or right of action is a final and definitive judgment. Such a judgment cannot be appealed from until it is signed. An appeal taken before signing is premature, and, must be dismissed ex propria motu. James v. St. Charles Hotel Co., 145 La. 1004 , 83 So. 222 ; Hotard v. Dupont, 1 La. App. 646 . W. R. Alexander does not make any appearance in this court. As to R. C. Alexander, the record is devoid of any prayer for or order of appeal. The only prdyer and order in the record, dated January 15, 1934, reads: “That the judgment in favor of W. R. Alexander, one of the defendants in the above numbered and entitled cause, sustaining the exception of no cause of action filed by W. R. Alexander was rendered herein on the 6th day of December in the year 1933 and signed on the 7th day of December in. the year 1933; that said judgment is contrary to the law and the evidence, and the petitioner is aggrieved thereby and- desires to-appeal therefrom * * The order reads: “Let the petitioner be, and she is hereby, granted a devolutive appeal as prayed for in the foregoing petition.” The petition is wholly erroneous, as the judgment described in it was in favor of R. C. Alexander. The order is expressly limited to the erroneous recitals. Counsel for R. O. Alexander has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as to him. The motion is good. Sears v. Bearsh, 7 La. Ann. 539 ; Dupre v. Mouton, 23 La. Ann. 543 ; Phillips v. Her Creditors, 35 La. Ann. 935 ; *375 Gagneaux v. Desonier, 104 La. 648 , 29 So. 282 . The appeal being fatally defective as to both defendants, it is hereby dismissed, at the cost of appellant