Case Title: Portier v. Marquette Casualty Company

Citation: 160 So. 2d 585, 245 La. 702

Docket Number: 

State: louisiana

Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Date: 1964-01-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
160 So. 2d 585 (1964) 245 La. 702 Guy V.PORTIER v. MARQUETTE CASUALTY COMPANY. No. 46740. Supreme Court of Louisiana. January 20, 1964. Rehearing Denied February 24, 1964. James P. Vial, Leon C. Vial, III, Harry T. Lemmon, Hahnville, for plaintiff-appellee. Schoemann, Gomes, Ducote & Collins, Rudolph R. Schoemann, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant-respondent. HAMLIN, Justice: In the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction (Art. VII, Sec. 11, La.Const. of 1921, LSA) we directed Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, limited to a review of that part of its judgment in *586 the instant matter which denied plaintiff's motion to dismiss the appeal because of appellant's failure to have the record lodged in the Court of Appeal on or before the return day as extended. 244 La. 624, 153 So. 2d 415. The facts of record disclose that Guy V. Portier brought suit against Marquette Casualty Company for property damages, in the amount of $405.95, alleged to have resulted from the negligence of the proprietor,[1] his agents and/or employees, of the Norco Shell Service Station, Norco, Louisiana, in the adjustment and manipulation of the brakes of plaintiff's 1957 Chrysler automobile. The trial court rendered judgment as prayed for by plaintiff. On March 22, 1962, the trial judge signed defendant's motion for a suspensive appeal and fixed May 21, 1962 as the return day for filing the record in the Court of Appeal. An appeal bond was furnished on March 28, 1962, in the amount of $657.23. On March 20, 1962, the Clerk of Court, Parish of St. Charles, submitted to counsel for defendant a bill reading: The bill was paid on March 22, 1962; counsel had previously paid $16.50 witness fees, out of which had been expended $12.25 ($16.50-$12.25=$4.25). Therefore, a total of $71.20 had been paid to the Clerk of Court ($54.70 plus $16.50=$71.20). On May 1, 1962, a letter was addressed to the Clerk of Court by counsel for defendant, requesting advice as to when the transcript and record would be ready "since the return date is rapidly approaching." His letter was returned with a written notation on the bottom thereof signed by a Deputy Clerk to the effect that if the transcript was not ready by May 21, 1962, "we will take the extension." On June 27, 1962, counsel again wrote the Clerk of Court: "We would appreciate you advising us if the transcript of the record has been filed in the Court of Appeals." This letter was also returned to counsel with a notation on the bottom thereof signed by a Deputy Clerk: "The return date on the above matter has been extended to July 20, 1962." On July 19, 1962, counsel again wrote the Clerk of Court: "Since I will be out of town on July 30, 1962, kindly either file the transcript and record it with the Court of Appeals. If the record is still not ready, please have the return date extended." It is admitted by counsel that "July 30" is in error. On August 10, 1962, the Deputy Clerk of Court wrote to counsel for the defendant that "we will need a check made payable to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, in the sum of $25.00 before the suit can be filed in Appeal Court. The return date is August 20, 1962." On August 29, 1962, counsel for the defendant sent a check for $25.00 made payable to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, to the Clerk of the District Court; he made a notation on the check: "Sorry for the delay, but this bill was received while I was out of town." The record was lodged in the Court of Appeal on September 5, 1962, sixteen days after the return day as extended. On September 17, 1962, counsel received a bill from the Clerk of Court reading: "Court Cost Suit #6611, Guy V. Portier vs. Marquette Casualty Co., $17.85", and on September 20, 1962, this amount was paid, the letter of transmittal stating: "We would *587 appreciate you advising us concerning what these expenditures are for and their dates." On October 2, 1962, the Clerk of Court replied as follows: On September 6, 1962, counsel for plaintiff-appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, averring: After reviewing the arithmetical facts set forth supra, the Court of Appeal (146 So.2d 48) found that it was perfectly apparent that what the Clerk did was to apply the balance of $58.95 to the total of the costs accrued in the case in spite of the fact that defendant-appellant had taken and perfected a suspensive appeal. The Court stated that the appeal taken by defendant-appellant suspended the execution and effect of the judgment appealed from and such judgment had not become final. The Court further held that appellant could not become liable for accrued costs unless and until a final judgment was rendered against it by the appellate court. It stated: *588 The Court of Appeal denied the motion to dismiss.[2] The appeal was then considered on the merits of the case (150 So.2d 882), the motion to dismiss being renewed at that time. The Court stated that it found no reason for reversing its previous ruling denying the motion to dismiss. It reversed the judgment of the trial court and found plaintiff's wife, the driver of the car at the time the instant property damage was incurred, guilty of contributory negligence which superseded the primary negligence, if any, of the service station operator. The present review was granted; in this Court, relator, plaintiff Guy V. Portier, assigns the following errors in the judgment of the Court of Appeal denying the motion to dismiss: Defendant respondent argues here: Anent the procedure of lodging appeals, the new Code of Civil Procedure provides: The above Articles and Official Revision Comments reflect that it was the Legislative intent to place the onus of lodging the appeal in the appellate court on the Clerk of the District Court; it was the Legislative intention to rest the responsibility for appellate costs with the appellant. Appeal is the exercise of the right of a party to have a judgment of a trial court revised, modified, set aside, or reversed by an appellate court. LSA-C.C.P. Article 2082. Under our law and jurisprudence, appeals are favored and aided by the courts. Esso Standard Oil Company v. Jordan, 231 La. 594, 92 So. 2d 377; Succession of Tullier, 216 La. 821, 44 So. 2d 880; Vidrine v. American Employers Ins. Co., 129 So. 2d 284. The law is too well settled to require the citation of authority that appeals are favored in the law, must be *590 maintained wherever possible and will not be dismissed for technicalities. Sam v. Deville Gin, Inc., La.App., 143 So. 2d 838. Unless the ground urged for the dismissal is free from doubt an appeal will be sustained. Police Jury of Parish of St. James v. Borne, 192 La. 1041, 190 So. 124. The Code of Civil Procedure sets forth rules of construction, and among these rules is Article 5051 which states that the articles of the Code are to be construed liberally, and with due regard for the fact that rules of procedure implement the substantive law and are not an end in themselves. Also, courts are enjoined to liberally interpret the rules of civil procedure so that the real rights of the litigants may be protected. Marcantel v. Manuel, La.App., 134 So. 2d 615. A consideration of the above jurisprudence in connection with the articles of the Code of Civil Procedure, supra, leads us to agree with the finding of the Court of Appeal that defendant made a sufficient deposit on March 22, 1962 and had an adequate balance on August 20, 1962 to take care of the costs of filing his appeal. Prior to August 20, 1962, the Clerk of Court appropriated the funds on deposit to the accrued costs. These costs did accrue, but all were not really due by defendant on August 20, 1962. Defendant took a suspensive appeal, the effect of which was to suspend the execution of the judgment rendered against him (LSA-C.C.P. Art. 2123); costs are usually a part of the judgment (LSA-C.C.P. Art. 1920) and may be assessed by the appellate court (LSA-C.C.P. Art. 2163). Defendant furnished an appeal bond on March 28, 1962, in the amount of $657.23; this bond sufficiently covered all costs and stated: Since bond was furnished and no contention has been made herein that the record did not contain all material needed for the disposition of this matter on appeal, there is no necessity for us to discuss relator's contention (LSA-R.S. 13:969(D)) that the stenographic fees were not paid until after the extension date. Cf. Sirone v. Distefano, La.App., 67 So. 2d 150. The actions of defendant's counsel were expressive of diligence; he was solicitous of the preparation of the record and its being lodged by the Clerk of the Trial Court in the Court of Appeal; he paid promptly when billed; he informed the Clerk of Court of his pending absence from the district; he was guilty of no laches. To find that counsel for the defendant was derelict in his duty would defeat the spirit and tenor of the new Code of Civil Procedure. We conclude that the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that defendant's balance of $58.95, as of March 22, 1962, was more than sufficient to cover both the amount due the Clerk of the Trial Court for the preparation and transmitting the record *591 ($29.80) and the $25.00 filing fee due the Clerk of the Court of Appeal. LSA-C.C.P. Arts. 2126, 2127; LSA-R.S. 13:4445. Any delay in lodging the record in the Court of Appeal was, therefore, not imputable to the appellant. For the reasons assigned, the judgments of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, are affirmed. All costs to be paid by plaintiff. [1] Marquette Casualty Company had in full force and effect a garage liability policy covering and protecting the proprietor, his agents and/or employees, of the Norco Shell Service Station. [2] This Court denied Certiorari on January 3, 1963. [3] "(c) This article gives the lower court some control over a case in which an appeal has been perfected. Under Louisiana jurisprudence, it is well settled that a lower court loses all jurisdiction over a case on appeal except as to the appeal bond. Mistich v. Holman, 205 La. 171, 17 So. 2d 23 (1944). The above text extends the lower court's jurisdiction to a further point, at least in so far as adjusting the return date on the appeal. See Art. 2088, supra. Since the doctrine of the Mistich case and those cases which preceded it is not based upon any constitutional provision, the legislature has the power to extend the jurisdiction of the lower court to the extent provided by this article." Official Revision Comments. [4] "The new statute adopted to implement the above article [13:4445] accords with the latter, and specifies what fees the clerk of the trial court shall charge the appellant. See revised R.S. 13:4445 and 13:4446. Both this statute and the above article are intended to overrule legislatively the unfortunate and unworkable rule of Osborne v. Mossler Acceptance Corporation, supra, [210 La. 1048,] [29 So. 2d 58,] by: (1) making it the mandatory duty of the appellant to pay these fees to the clerk of the trial court; and (2) requiring such payment to be made not later than three days before the return day, or extended return day. If the appellant fails to pay such fees timely, any delay in lodging the record of appeal in the appellate court is imputable to the appellant." Official Revision Comments. "A. Not later than three days before the return day, or extended return day, of the appeal fixed by the trial court, the appellant shall pay to the clerk of the trial court: "(1) The fees to be due the clerk of the appellate court for filing the record of appeal, under the applicable provision of R.S. 13:126 or R.S. 13:352; and "(2) The cost of transmitting the record of appeal to the clerk of the appellate court and all other fees due the clerk of the trial court for preparing the record of appeal. "B. The clerk of the trial court shall transmit the fees due the appellate court clerk, with the record of appeal, to the clerk of the appellate court to which the appeal is taken. The clerk of the appellate court shall not docket the appeal or file the record thereof until he has received the fees due him. When the appellant has paid the fees required under Sub-section A of this Section timely, the failure of the clerk of the trial court to transmit the record, or to pay the fees due the appellate court clerk timely, is not imputable to the appellant." LSA-R.S. 13:4445.