Case Name: L. H. Goldman vs. Simon Goldman
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1897-06-22
Citations: 50 La. Ann. 29
Docket Number: No. 12,531
Parties: L. H. Goldman vs. Simon Goldman.
Judges: The Chief Justice takes no part in this case.
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 50
Pages: 29–36

Head Matter:
No. 12,531.
L. H. Goldman vs. Simon Goldman.
Amicable compounders are judicial appointees who are selected by the parties to a litigation over partnership and lilie matters; but once they have been appointed and qualified, and one or more of them resign and others are appointed in their stead, it will be assumed that sueli appointments were authorized unless the contrary clearly appears.
APPEAL from the First Judicial District Oourt for the Parish of, Ouachita. Potts, J.
Boatner, Potts & Hudson for Plaintiff, Yppellant.
A. A. Gfunby and E. T. Lamkin for Defendant, Appellee.
Argued and submitted June 8, 1897.
Opinion handed down June 22, 1897.
Rehearing refused January 24, 1898.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Watkins, J.
The grounds of the motion are (1) that the judgment appealed from is based on an award of amicable- compounders and is not reviewable on appeal; (2) there is no evidence or statement of facts in the record from which this court can review the judgment appealed from.
The theory on which the plaintiff prosecutes this' appeal is, that when the report of the alleged amicable compounders was filed, and the defendant's counsel ruled him to show cause why Same should not be homologated, his counsel submitted an extended opposition thereto, which was, on motion of defendant's counsel, stricken from the record; and consequently he was not permitted to introduce any evidence in support of his opposition. And it is further to the effect that there were no amicable compounders selected by the parties and appointed by the court conformably to law, and, for that reason, the judgment based upon the report which was submitted, is necessarily illegal, and therefore appealable.
In our opinion the appellant is entitled to a hearing on these ques tions of law, and his right to an appeal must be recognized and sustained.
The motion to dismiss is denied.