Case ID: la_124/html/0601-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MONROE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(50 South. 594.)
    No. 17,718.
    AUCOIN v. RAMOS LUMBER & MFG. CO., Limited. In re RAMOS LUMBER & MFG. CO., Limited.
    (Nov. 2, 1909.)
    Certiorari (§ 40*) — Time for Application-Effect of Failure to Apply in Time.
    This court is without jurisdiction to review a judgment rendered by a Court of Appeal, when the application for such review was made after the expiration of the delay allowed by article 101 of the Constitution.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Certiorari, Cent. Dig. § 58; Dec. Dig. § 40.*]
    (Syllabus by the Court.)
    Action by Helena Aucoin against the Ramos Lumber & Manufacturing Company, Limited. Plaintiff bad judgment, which was affirmed by a Court of Appeal, and defendant applies for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal.
    Application dismissed.
    Beattie & Beattie, for applicant. Marks, Wortham & Le Blanc, for respondents.
   MONROE, J.

In this case, as in the case of Louis Landry v. Ramos Lumber & Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (No. 17,717, this day decided) 50 South. 593, the application for the writ of review was made after the expiration of the delay allowed by article 101 of the Constitution; the dates upon which the judgments were rendered and entered and upon which the applications for review were made having been the same in both cases. This court is therefore, and for the reasons fully stated in the case referred to, -without jurisdiction to review the judgment here complained of; and it is accordingly adjudged and decreed that this application he now dismissed, at the cost of the applicant. 
      
       Ante, p. 589.