Case Name: R. N. Lewis vs. G. A. Peterkin et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1887-06
Citations: 39 La. Ann. 780
Docket Number: No. 1169
Parties: R. N. Lewis vs. G. A. Peterkin et al.
Judges: Mr. Justice Todd takes no part in this case.
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 39
Pages: 780–785

Head Matter:
No. 1169.
R. N. Lewis vs. G. A. Peterkin et al.
The appellant who suggests a diminution of the record before the expiration of the three judicial days within which he may file the transcript of appeal, is entitled to a certiorari for the correction and completing of the transcript, even after the cause has been argued and submitted for judgment, in caso his application he made before the expiration oí the three days aforesaid.
A judgment of separation of property duly rendered in favor of the wife against her husband, cannot he inquired into or attacked collaterally by a creditor of the husband, whose claim had not yet arisen when the judgment was rendered.
A married woman separated in property from her husband has the legal right to purchase property in her own name and for her separate account, and the burden of proof is on the party assailing the validity of such sales.
A PPEAL from the Sixth District Court, Parish of Morehouse. _OL Jevy, Judge ad hoc.
R. B. Todd, Jr., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
A judgment of separation of property, in order to be valid, must be executed; dation en paiement one year after its rendition, does not revive or give it effect. 28 Ann. 345; 34 Ann. 690.
A judgment of separatiou to effect third persons must bo advertised or recorded.
Parol evidence is inadmissible to show authority to purchase real estate. O. C. 2997,2440; ■ 23 Ann. 196 ; 28 Ann. 678.
A simulated sale conveys no rights to tbe pretended vendee. 15 Ann. 177; 23 Ann. 46, Where a sale is attached on account of simulation the widest latitude is allowed. 30 Ann. 1203; 36 Ann. 681.
When the wife, who is separate in property, has left the enjoyment of her property to her husband without any procuration he is not answerable for the fruits until a demand be made by Ms wife, or if it is not made, until tbe dissolution of the marriage. He is not-accountable for tbe fruits that have been previously consumed. C. O. 2396.
If after a separation of property and a dissolution of the community the husband operates with the wife’s funds, this should be clearly made to appear. 15 Ann. 33 $ 16 Ann. 214 ; 18 Ann. 126; 2D Ann. 532.
If the husband buys and pays for property the purchase will be presumed to be bis ; if he uses his wife’s funds this must be shown by her, 10 Aim. 784; 15 Ann. 33,119; 21 Ann. 343; 22 Ann. 148.
Newton & Oason, for Defendant and Appellee :

Opinion:
ON MOTION TO DISMISS AND ON APPLICATION FOR CERTIORARI.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Roché, J.
On the first day of the present term appellees moved for tbe dismissal of this appeal on the ground that tbe clerk, in bis certificate, did not state that tbe transcript contained all the evidence adduced on tbe trial below.
Two days later, appellant filed bis application for an order to direct tbe clerk of the district court to correct bis certificate, and tbe application is resisted by appellees on the ground that it was not made before, or at the time of the argument as required by art. 898 of the Code of Practice.
It is true that the motion for a certiorari was made after tlie case had been submitted, and not, as erroneously contended for by appel lant's counsel, after it bad been partially submitted. But it is clearly apparent that the fault is not imputable to appellant, if the clerk omitted to state the whole truth in his certificate. The transcript is voluminous, and it.contains a mass of documentary evidence and of parol testimony taken down in writing.
Hence, it is more than probable that tbe error is in the certificate.; and for that reason the appeal cannot be dismissed. Revised Statutes, section 36, Flint vs. Peck, 22 Ann. 246; Baltimore vs. Parlange, 25 Ann. 335; Burton vs. Hicks, 27 Ann. 507; Stafford vs. Harper, 32 Ann. 1076.
Now, as the appeal cannot be dismissed at the present stage, because the apparent deficiency of the transcript is not imputable to appellant, and as the case cannot be tried because it is not shown that the transcript does contain all the evidence offered, admitted and considered below, what will become of the case 7 Reason and law alike point out the course to be pursued, and require that appellant be allowed an opportunity to complete his transcript; as the three judicial days within which he could file his transcript had not yet expired when the case was argued and submitted, his right, under the law, to have his transcript corrected and completed is not affected by the provisions of article 898 of the Code of Practice. Such a course was pursued in the case of Trudeau vs. Railroad, 15 Ann. 717, in which the following rule was formulated. " When a diminution of the record is suggested, the Supreme Court will order a certiorari to perfect it, although the case has been submitted for judgment."
But as it may happen that the silence of the clerk in his certificate is proof of a negative fact, aud that the transcript does not contain all the evidence adduced at the trial, we shall not now dispose of appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal, and shall postpone consideration' thereof until the clerk makes his return on the certiorari.
It is therefore ordered that a writ of certiorari issue to the clerk of the district court of the parish of Morehouse ordering him to complete his certificate to the transcript of appeal in this case, by stating positively whether said transcript does or not contain aLl the evidence adduced on the trial of said cause, and that said writ be made returnable on the 18th day of June, 1887.