Case Name: Nathaniel T. Edson vs. Morris McGraw et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1885-04
Citations: 37 La. Ann. 294
Docket Number: No. 9293
Parties: Nathaniel T. Edson vs. Morris McGraw et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 37
Pages: 294–299

Head Matter:
No. 9293.
Nathaniel T. Edson vs. Morris McGraw et al.
It is tlie duty of clerks of court, in making transcripts of appeal for transmission to this Court, to observe tlie rules of this Court and the law relative to the confection of such transcripts.
“Where transcripts transmitted here, under a certificate attesting their completeness, are materially deficient by the fault of the clerk making the same, the Court will not permit them to be patched up by additional or supplemental transcript, but will order the clerk to make, at his cost, a new entire transcript of the record below, such as he should have made at first under the rules of the law, and will eventually exercise its punitory powers and inflict a fine. It. S. 1907.
An unverified charge that a transcript is defective by the fault of the appellant will not j ustify the dismissal of the appeal.
The appellant is protected by the full certificate of the clerk, where it is not shown that he knew the transcript to be deficient, and procured the certificate notwithstanding.
The clerk of the district court will not be held to make, at his cost, a new transcript, although that filed here was made in disregard of the rules of this Court, and is defective, where it is claimed by him that the transcript was thus made by the appellant, or under his supervision. The question of cost should remain an open one.
Where there has been a written, agreement to sell real estate upon specified conditions and tor a price mainly on credit, with the stipulation that if the payments are not made the seller shall have the option to cancel the contract upon giving the buyer thirty days’ no tice, and may impute the payments already made as rent, and the buyer abandons the contract and himself gives notice to the seller of his surrender of all rights thereunder, the latter is dispensed with the duty of giving the notice stipulated in the contract. It would be a vain and superfluous thing to do.
Parol proof is admissible of the acto of one pretending to rights under a written agreement to sell real estate for the purpose of shewing that such acts are inconsistent with and repugnant .to a claim of ownership under such agreement, and that they repel the reality of such claim andjdemonstrate the fraudulent pretention setup at a late day, of ownership or of rights to ownership under such agreement.
PPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Tissot, J.
Walter H. Rogers for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Joseph P. Honor and Francis W. Baker for Defendants and Appellees.
Fred. I). King for the Clerk of the Civil District Court.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss and for Certiorari.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Bermudez, C. J.
The appellee complains that the transcript is made in violation of the rules of this Court and is materially deficient.
Since the filing of the motion to dismiss, and before its calling, the appellant has moved for an order on the clerk of the district court to complete the record, siiecifying the documents desired.
There is no verified averment that the transcript is incomplete by the fault of the appellant, who is protected by the clerk's certificate which attests the fullness of the record.
It is apparent that the transcript was made in such utter disregard of the rules of the Court, that far from facilitating, it embarrasses an investigation of the case.
We will not undertake to enumerate the many different particulars in which it thus violates those rules, but simply refer to the motion to dismiss for specification on the subject.
It is proper that the attention of the clerk of the lower court' be drawn, not only to the rules of this Court, hut also to section 1907 of the R. S., which vests this Court with certain punitory powers to he exercised where the irregularities and deficiencies which exist in transcripts are attributable to the clerk.
We cannot dismiss the appeal and must grant the motion of the appellant. We will reserve the rights of the appellee, if auy, to move seasonably for the dismissal of the appeal, after the motion of appellant will have been acted upon, should the transcript then be defective-by appellant's fault; but, in as much as compliance with that motion would amount to a patching up of the objectionable transcript, we think that the clerk should be made to do what he has omitted and should do.
It is therefore ordered that the clerk of the civil district court for the-parish of Orleans do, within a delay of fifteen days, make such new transcript of the record below, as the rules of this Court and the law require, at his costs, under penalty of such fine as the' Court may deem proportioned to a dereliction of duty on his part in the matter.