Case ID: la_12/html/0437-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Bullard, J.,\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BASS vs. BARTON.
    Western Dist.
    Oct. 1838.
    APPEAL EROÍH THE COURT OJ? PROBATES POR THE TAKISH OE ’CARROLL.
    The provisions of article 900 of the Code of Practice, relates to cases in which the appellant seeks to obtain from the judge, a statement of facts, or his signature to bills of exception, and not to applications for time, and a mandamus to the judge a quo to complete the record.
    At any time before or at the argument of the cause, the appellant may obtain further time, and a mandamus to the judge a quo, to complete and bring up the record. Time is given until the next term, to complete and file the record.
    
      In this case an appeal was granted, returnable to the October terra, 1837, of this court. The record was made out with a certificate, in the name of the probate judge, appended to it, that it “ contained a copy of all the docu* ments on file, a transcript of all the proceedings had, and all the testimony adduced in the cause,” but the signature of the judge was omitted. ■ This transcript was regularly filed on the 2d October, 1837, being the first day of the term. The court was opened, on three several days of this term, b.ut no business done, and it adjourned over to the next year.
    Now, on the 2d day of the October term, 1838, an affida"vit and motion is filed, praying for an extension of the return day of said appeal, until the 1st Monday in October, 1839, and that a writ of mandamus, be awarded to the probate judge of the parish of. Carroll, commanding him to make out and certify a true and correct record of the appeal.
    Selb}>, for the defendant and appellee, filed a motion on the 2d day of the October term, 1837, to dismiss this case for want of the certificate of the probate judge, and insisted on its dismissal.
    
      Stacey, for the appellant,
    contended, that the party bad a right at any time before the argument of the cause, to make a motion for time to complete the record; and now moved for a mandamus to the probate judge, to complete and sign the certificate at the foot of the record, and for time, until the next term to bring it up and file it. He cited Code of Practice, article 898.
    
      Selby, contra.
    
   Bullard, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellee moved the court to dismiss the appeal in this case, by written motion, filed by the clerk on the second day of the last term. That motion was not acted upon, because no business was transacted at that term. On the second day of the present term, the appellant moved for further time to bring up the transcript., and for a mandamus addressed to the judge, commanding him to certify the record. The defect is apparent, the file of papers purporting to be a transcript, is without the signature of the judge,

The provisions of the 900(h article of theCode of Practice, relates to cases, in which the appellant seeks to obtain from the judge a statement of facts, or his signature to bills of exception, and not to applications for time, and a mandamus to the judge aquo to complete the record.

At any time before or at the argument of the cause, the appellant may obtain further time,and a mandamus tí the judge a quo to complete and bring up the record'. Time is given until the next term to complete and file the record.

This motion on the part of the appellant is opposed, on the ground, that according to article 900 of the Code of Practice, it should have been made on the first day of the term. We are of opinion, that that article relates only to cases in which the party wishing to appeal, seeks the aid of this court, to obtain from- the judge a statement of facts, or his signature to bills of exceptions, taken during the trial below, and not to a case like the present, where the only object is to obtain a certified copy of the record and proceedings. Article 898, gives to the appellant a right to have a defect in the transcript corrected, even if the defect should be discovered at the time of the argument. Nothing shows that the defect in this case, is attributable to the fault of the appellant.

The motion to dismiss, is therefore, overruled, and it is 3 ordered, that time be given to the appellant until the next term of the court, to bring up a transcript; and it is further ordered, that a mandamus issue, commanding the judge of the Court of Probates for the parish of Carroll, to certify the same according to law.