Case Name: James J. Lane vs. Illinois Central Railroad Company
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1891-05
Citations: 43 La. Ann. 833
Docket Number: No. 10,809
Parties: James J. Lane vs. Illinois Central Railroad Company.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 43
Pages: 833–836

Head Matter:
No. 10,809.
James J. Lane vs. Illinois Central Railroad Company.
The object of tbe judicial stamp act is to secure the contributions to the judicial expense fund, not to set traps for litigants.
It appearing that under the practice of the court and the custom of the clerk’s office it is permitted, when not objected to at the time, to use documents and testimony on the trial and to stamp them subsequently; and further, that in making up transcripts of appeal, it is the clerk’s custom to notify the counsel interested when he discovers any document that has been used in evidence to be unstamped, in order that he may supply the omission, the failure of the clerk, in haste, to notice an unstamped document and to give the customary notice, should not he visited on the appellant, who has relied on the clerk’s custom and on his complete certificate, as a fault depriving him of his appeal, when the omission of the stamp has been inadvertent, and is supplied as soon as discovered and before the appellee has suffered any possible harm.
A railroad company whose freight train derails and runs into an adjoining building, causing damage to person and property therein, in the absence of justification and without contributory negligence on the part of the injured party, is guilty of gross negligence and liable for indemnity.
APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. King, J.
F, M. GiU for Plaintiff and Appellee:
1. Railroad companies running and operating its road through the streets of a city are hound to observe extraordinary precaution, particularly at street crossings.
2. Must keep the engines in front and not run their trains backward. They must give signals of approaching trains. 40 An. 810-817.
3. They must confine their rate of speed to that provided bylaw, four miles an hour, and give signal of approaching trains. Their employes must be men of skill, constantly on the alert, and exercise judgment and caution, and not guilty of negligence and want of care culpable. 38 An. 777; 23 An. 182.
4, Damages of the lower court increased by six times the amount. 89 An. 800-808. i>y double the amount. 41 An. 024.
o. Damages in such eases should be assessed on the most liberal scale. 10 An. 89.
Oirault 'S Farrar for Defendant and Appellant.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
The opininion of the court was delivered by
Fenner, J.
The motion has two grounds, viz.:
1. That a plan offered in evidence by plaintiff and duly filed has been omitted from the transcript by appellant's fault. The clerk's certificate is complete and protects appellant in the right to supply the omission, on discovery, by certiorari, which he has done.
2. That a document marked xy, which was offered in evidence by defendant, is omitted from the record because the defendant had failed to have the same properly stamped and filed, which justified the clerk in omitting it, and places the fault entirely on the defendant appellant.
Our attention is called to the provisions of Act 136 of 1880, which require evidence to be stamped before filing, and also declare that testimony not stamped and filed shall not be copied into the transcript or considered by the appellate court.
It appears, however, that in this case most, if not all, the evidence which was offered and met on the trial, was not stamped and filed till some time after the judgment was rendered. It further appears that it is the custom of the clerk's office, in making up transcripts of appeal, when it is discovered that evidence, which has been offered and used on the trial, has not been stamped and filed, to notify the counsel interested in order that he may remedy the defect; that in this case the clerk, in the haste of making up the transcript, overlooked the document xy and failed to notify counsel or to include it in the transcript. As soon as the motion to dismiss informed counsel, who had relied on the clerk's practice and his complete certificate, that this document had not been stamped and was omitted from the transcript, he supplied the oversight by having the same properly stamped, and now brings up this document also under his certiorari.
It thus appears that in practice the rigid requirements of the statute- are .relaxed by common. consent; that, unless insisted on, trials are not delayed to affix stamps during the course thereof, but that the stamping and- filing, may be done after trial, and even, as in this case, after .judgment, and after appeal while the transcript is being made.
Under this practice., if, as appears, it be the. custom of, the clerk's office to notify counsel and afford opportunity to affix .stamps inadvertently omitted, we do not think the failure of the clerk to notice an unstamped document and to give the customary notice, should be visited as a fault on the appellant, destroying his right of appeal, when the omission has been inadvertent and is supplied as soon as discovered and before the appellee has suffered the slightest harm.
The law is intended to secure the contributions to the judicial expense fund- — not to set traps for litigants.
The case is very different from that of Schmitt vs. Drouet, 42 An. 716.
Motion denied.