Case Name: PLANTERS' LUMBER CO. v. SUGAR CANE BY-PRODUCTS CO.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1922-01-02
Citations: 154 La. 16
Docket Number: No. 24440
Parties: PLANTERS’ LUMBER CO. v. SUGAR CANE BY-PRODUCTS CO.
Judges: O’NIELL, G. J., dissents, being oí the opinion that the court should now dispose of the case.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 154
Pages: 16–25

Head Matter:
(97 South. 267)
No. 24440.
PLANTERS’ LUMBER CO. v. SUGAR CANE BY-PRODUCTS CO.
(Jan. 2, 1922.
On the Merits, June 22, 1922. On Rehearing, Jan. 27, 1923. Supplemental Opinion, April 30, 1923. Second Rehearing Denied May 21, 1923.)
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
On Motion to Dismiss.
1. Appeal and error &wkey;>776 — Motion to dismiss appeal by corporation, on ground that it had been abandoned, denied, when receiver appeared and opposed dismissal.
Motion to dismiss appeal by corporation fi•om judgment homologating account of its receivers, on ground that its board of directors had ordered the appeal abandoned, denied, where receiver appointed in state of its incorporation appeared'and opposed the dismissal.
On Rehearing.
2. Appeal and error c&wkey;635(3) — Appeal not dismissed because evidence not in transcript, when appellant’s counsel took record as he found it, without notice that evidence was taken.
Appeal from judgment homologating receivers’ account will not be dismissed because evidence is not in transcript, when appellant’s counsel took the record as he found it, without notice that evidence had been reported stenographieally and was not in fault, especially as appellee could bring omitted portion of record before the court by supplemental transcript, under Act. No. 265 of 1918. i
3. Appeal and error <&wkey;6!2(4) — Clerk’s certificate on appeal from judgment homologating account of receivers held not defective.
Where suit for appointment of receivers and receivership transactions were conducted in same proceeding and under the same number, and transcript on appeal from judgment1 ho mologating the account contained final account and judgment, clerk’s certificate held not defective.
4. Appeal and error <&wkey;609 — Filing of omitted evidence permitted on rehearing in interests of justice.
Where evidence in support of judgment homologating receivers’ account was taken stenographically, but not transcribed and placed in record, and judgment was reversed for want of evidence to support it, appellees held to be permitted on rehearing to file it as supplemental transcript, under Act No. 265 of 1918.
On Further Hearing after Filing of Supplemental Transcript.
5. Appeal and error <&wkey; 1108(3) — Case held to be remanded, where judgment by default homologating account was in part unsupported by evidence and account apparently incomplete.
Where judgment homologating receivers’ account was taken by default, before assets had been collected or liquidated, and evidence was insufficient to sustain some items and the account apparently incomplete, case held to be remanded in the interests of justice, with reservation to all parties of right to amend or file new pleadings.
O’Niell, O. J., and Rogers, J., dissenting in part.
Appeal from Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Iberia; James Simon, Judge.
Suit by the Planters’ Lumber Company against the Sugar Cane By-Products Company. From a judgment homologating account of receivers for the defendant company, defendant appeals.
Judgment set aside, and cause remanded on rehearing.
Charlton R. Beattie, of New Orleans, for appellant.
Burke & Smith, of New Iberia, for appellee receivers.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
PROYOSTY, J.
The defendant company is a Delaware corporation. The present suit is for the appointment of receivers to have charge of its property and affairs in this state. The receivers were appointed; all the property was sold; the receivers filed an account, and the account was homologated by judgment; from this judgment the court granted an appeal to this court, on the petition of the defendant company, represented by counsel. The receivers moved to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the board of directors of the company had ordered the appeal to be abandoned. The right of the company to abandon the appeal was challenged by the attorney who had taken it, on the ground that it had been taken by virtue of a contract entered into by the company with one of its creditors, and of an ^irrevocable power of attorney given to this creditor. This court thereupon remanded the ease to the trial court for testimony to be taken on that point. This testimony has not yet been taken. Counsel for appellant would impute the delay to the counsel for appellees, and counsel for the appellees seek to exonerate themselves on various grounds. A receiver has now been appointed at the home of the company, and this receiver opposes the dismissal of the appeal. Under these circumstances we can see no good reason why the appeal should be dismissed. Accordingly,
The motion to dismiss is denied.