Case Name: LAZARUS v. FRIEDRICHS
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1908-11-04
Citations: 125 La. 619
Docket Number: No. 17,321
Parties: LAZARUS v. FRIEDRICHS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 125
Pages: 619–643

Head Matter:
(51 South. 663.)
No. 17,321.
LAZARUS v. FRIEDRICHS.
(Nov. 4, 1908.
On. the Merits, May 10, 1909.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 28, 1910.)
(Syllabus by the Ootvrt.)
On Motion to Dismiss.
1. Appeal and Error (§ 628*) — Dismissal-Filing Transcript op Appeal.
If an appellant files his transcript of appeal on the return day fixed by the judge, his appeal will not be dismissed although the return day so fixed is for a day later than that ordered by the statute. The appeal is saved by the provisions of article 898 of the Code of Practice.
TEd. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 2751; Dec. Dig. § 028.*]
On the Merits.
2. Evidence (§ 598*) — Actions—Weight op Evidence.
Where the testimony of the two parties to an alleged contract conflicts, and there are no other competent witnesses, and the preponderance of corroborating circumstances ;and probabilities sustains the defense, the demand of the plaintiff must be rejected.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. §§ 2450-2452; Dec. Dig/ § 598.*]
3. Witnesses (§ 317*) — Credibility—Contradictory Testimony.
The court cannot accept the testimony of a witness who deliberately contradicts himself, and undertakes to explain that, in testifying falsely or suppressing the truth, he was actuated by motives of interest.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. § 10S0; Dec. Dig. § 317.*]
4. Attorney and Client (§ 118*) — Duty op Attorney — Adverse Interest.
An attorney at law is bound to disclose to a client any adverse interest which he may have in connection with the business intrusted to him.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Attorney and Client, Cent. Dig. § 238; Dec. Dig. § 118.*]
Breaux, C. J., dissenting.
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; George I-I. Theard, Judge.
Action by Henry L. Lazarus against George G. Friedrichs. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Reversed and judgment rendered for defendant.
See, also, 117 La. 711, 42 South. 230.
Frank McGloin and Carl C. Friedrichs, for appellant. Farrar, Jonas, Kruttschnitt & Goldberg, T. M. & J. D. Miller, E. D. Saunders, and Richard F. Goldsborough, for appellee.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
NICHOLLS, J.
The appellee moves to dismiss the appeal taken in this case on the ground that the transcript herein was not lodged in this court within the time fixed by law, and that the delay is attributable to the defendant and appellant, and operates to the prejudice of the plaintiff and appellee.
The judgment appealed from was rendered on the 17th of July and signed on the 23d of July, 1908. The order of appeal granted the defendant was signed on August 3, 1908; and bond was given on the same day. The order of appeal made the same returnable on the first Monday of October, 1908. The transcript of appeal was filed in the Supreme Court on October 5, 1908, which was the day fixed by law for the opening of the next ensuing term of court and the return day designated by the court's order.
Appellant concedes that the district judge should have fixed, under Act No. 106 of 1908, the return day for this appeal for a day not less than 15 nor more than 60 days from the date of the order of appeal, and not for the first Monday of October, 1908, as he did, that date being more than 60 days from the order of appeal, but he urges that the fixing of the date of the return day was not his act, was not imputable to him, and under article 898 of the Code of Practice the appeal should not have been dismissed. The facts of this case save the appeal from dismissal under the provisions of that article. See Hodge v. Monroe Mercantile Co., 105 La. 668, 30 South. 142. The motion to dismiss is denied and the appeal is maintained.