Succession of Pilcher
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., April 1, 1963 152 So. 2d 649
Succession of Pilcher, 39 La. Ann. 362 (1887).
Cited by
- Modern Appliance & Supply, Inc. v. Sapp 200 So. 2d 363 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
- Ryan v. Barthelmy 32 So. 2d 467 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
- Brinson v. Monroe Automobile & Supply Co. 158 So. 558 La. 1934
- First Nat. Bank of Shreveport v. Davis 147 So. 93 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
- Donohoe Oil & Gas Co. v. MacK-jourden Co. 144 So. 169 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
- Clements v. Luby Oil Co. 130 So. 851 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
- Smith v. Henderson 121 So. 227 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
- Posner v. Little Pine Lumber Co. 102 So. 16 La. 1924
- Henry Rose Mercantile & Mfg. Co. v. Stearns 99 So. 533 La. 1924
- Toelke v. Toelke 96 So. 536 La. 1923
- Cornille v. R. G. Dun & Co. 79 So. 855 La. 1918
- Rosenthal v. Rosenthal 42 So. 270 La. 1906
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Heirs of Kimball v. Heirs of Lopez 7 La. 173
- Bailey v. Hickman 12 La. 415
Opinion text
*363 The opinion of the Court was delivered by Watkins, J. On Motion to Dismiss. 1st. That the clerk’s certificate is insufficient because it does not recite that the transcript contains “ all the evidence adduced on the trial.” 2d. The transcript is incomplete because it contains no note of evidence, no statement of the facts proven on the trial, and no bill of exceptions, nor assignment of errors filed in this Court. An examination of the record discloses that the appellant was only, constructively,- a party to the record by newspaper publication of notice, and that he did not actually participate in the trial of the account and tableau of distribution. Hence his appeal is to be viewed rather in the light of one taken by a third party resting his pietensions to relief upon the face of the papers, the correctness of which he concedes in point of fact, but the legality of which he puts at issue. “Although a case, the transcript of which comes up without the evidence or any statement of facts, cannot be examined on the merits the court will consider and decide the questions of la/w presented by bills of exception.” 7 La. 173; 12 La. 415; 12 Ann. 332. Under this view of the case, we have chosen to disregard the technical insufficiency of the certificate suggested — a fault not attributable to .the appellant — and proceed to the examination of the case. Motion to dismiss overruled.