Bacas v. Smith
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., October 8, 1980 389 So. 2d 823; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., December 14, 1976 340 So. 2d 424; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., January 30, 1952 59 So. 2d 398
Bacas v. Smith, 33 La. Ann. 139 (1881).
Cited by
- State Ex Rel. Cavanaugh v. Vernon Parish Police Jury 172 So. 403 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1937
- Riley Feed Mfg. Co. v. Rogers 160 So. 330 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
- Jefferson Island Salt Co. v. Rogers 160 So. 329 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
- Franke v. Shaw 97 So. 793 La. 1923
Opinion text
The opinion of the Court was delivered by Bermudez, C. J. We are asked by the plaintiff to reverse the judgment, which he states was rendered against him by the lower court, and to render judgment in his favor according to the prayer of his petition.. On the other hand, the defendants ask the affirmance of the judgment complained of by the plaintiff. We have diligently searched the transcript to find what the judgment is, which we are asked either to reverse or to affirm, and which we might have amended, but have been unable to discover any trace of it. This Court has, in many instances, dismissed appeals ex officio, when, a final judgment found in the transcript did not appear to have been signed by the judge a quo, treating it as inchoate. 17 An. 97; 7 L. 513 ; *140 20 An. 394, 500, 511, 583; 21 An. 261; 28 An. 26; 23 An. 219; 22 An. 410; 25 An. 7; 23 An. 400, 262; 4 R. 47 ; 7 R. 451 ; 9 An. 42; 27 An. 665. What different course can be pursued in a case in which no judgment •at all is to be found in the transcript? How can we be asked to review that which it is impossible for- us to view ? We cannot reverse, affirm, or amend a judgment blindly and unintelligently. We are, therefore, constrained to apply the maxim: De non appa:rentibus et non existentibus eadem est lex. It is, therefore, ordered that the appeal in this case be • dismissed with costs.