Case ID: so2d_40/html/0475-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PONDER, Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

215 La. 310
    SMITH v. ATKINS.
    No. 39295.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 25, 1949.
    Hussey •& Smi-t-h, of Shreveport, -for defendant and appellant.
    Robert J. N-ew-so-n, of Shreveport, for plain-tiff and appellee.
   PONDER, Justice.

The plaintiff, -appellee, moves to dismiss the appeal in this -c-ase on the -ground that the transcript is incomplete.

. An appeal will -not he dismissed without first allowing the appellant time to complete -the -transcript -in -compliance with th-e provisions of Act 234 of 1932.

Upon submission of the motion to dismiss the appeal, the appellant has filed a supplemental transcript containing -the documents -that the -ap-pell-ee claims were left out of the transcript. On three prior occasions we ha-v-e entertained controversies -between the parties to -this -suit involving the -property in dispute herein. See Atkins v. Smith, 204 La. 468, 15 So.2d 855; Atkins v. Smith, 207 La. 560, 21 So.2d 728 and Smith v. Atkins, 211 La. 369, 30 So.2d 121. It w-as not necessary -to incorporate in the transcript a co-py -of -our opinions in those -cases or portions of ou-r records -in th-e prior -suits -because we can take -cognizance of -our -own -records.

For the reasons assigned, the motion is denied.

O’NIELL, C. J., takes no -part.