Case Name: CRAVER v. GILLESPIE
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1920-11-29
Citations: 148 La. 182
Docket Number: No. 22868
Parties: CRAVER v. GILLESPIE.
Judges: O’NIELL, J., concurs in the decree.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 148
Pages: 181–187

Head Matter:
(86 South. 730)
No. 22868.
CRAVER v. GILLESPIE.
(Nov. 29, 1920.)
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
1. Master and servant <&wkey;4l7(41/2)— Certificate or affidavit unnecessary on appeal in compensation case.'
On appeal from-a default judgment in a proceeding under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, where the motion for appeal was made in writing in accordance with Code Prac. art. 573, neither certificate nor affidavit was necessary.
2.’Master and servant <&wkey;4l7(4i/2) — Judgment for compensation held not to have become final before appeal;
Where judgment, in a proceeding under the Workmen’s Compensation Act was rendered February 14th, and defendant, having moved for appeal March 6th, excepted to the jurisdiction of the court to consider plaintiff’s subsequent motion to vacate the appeal, and the appeal was then lodged with the Court of Appeal, which transferred the cause, the appeal will not be dismissed on the ground that judgment became final before any appeal was made.
3. Master and servant <&wkey;4l7(4(/2)— Order for appeal in compensation case held not to have been vacated.
Order allowing appeal held not to have been ^vacated; the minutes showing that the case was transferred to the Court of Appeal, etc., after defendant excepted to the jurisdiction of the court to hear plaintiff’s motion to vacate the appeal.
4. Master and servant <&wkey;4l7(4l/2) — Appeal bond unnecessary in compensation case.
Under Employers’ Liability Act, § 19, an appeal may be prosecuted by either employer or employs without furnishing an appeal bond.
5. Judgment <&wkey;ll7 — Evidence proving default cannot enlarge pleadings.
Where defendant defaulted, evidence received in proving up the default could not enlarge the cause of action pleaded, because defendant was not present consenting.
6. Master and servant <&wkey;349 — Statute held not in force at time of compensation claimant’s injury.
Act No. 243 of 1916, amending the Employers’ Liability Act (Act No. 20 of 1914), was not approved until July 6, 1916, and was not published until July 22, 1916, and so did not become a law outside of Baton Rouge until 20 days after publication; hence it was not in effect August 7th in Caddo parish, and one then injured in such parish cannot recover for permanent facial disfigurement by virtue of the amendatory act.
Appeal from First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo; J. R. Land, Judge.
Proceeding by R. O. Craver against George S. Gillespie under the Employers’ Liability Act for personal injuries. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss having been denied, the judgment was annulled, and judgment entered in favor of Mrs. Ida Gillespie, dative testamentary executrix, substituted defendant.
J. E. Smitherman, of Shreveport, for appellant.
Barret & Files, of Shreveport, for appellee.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
SOMMERVILLE, J.
Plaintiff-and appellee moves to dismiss the appeal herein for the reasons:
"1. That there is no certificate or affidavit attached to the motion for appeal.
"2. Judgment in the trial court had become final before any appeal-was made.
"3. There was no order for appeal herein, the.original order having been vacated by judgment of the trial court.
"4. There was nb appeal bond filed in the trial court."
1. The motion for appeal herein was in writing, made in open court, and it was granted, without bond. This was all done in accordance with article 573, C. P., and the Workmen's Compensation Act, and appellee has failed to point to any law requiring that the motion of appeal should be accompanied by certificate or affidavit.
2. We fail to understand what is meant in the second ground for dismissal, to the effect that the judgment in the trial court had become final in the trial court before any appeal was taken. The judgment was rendered February 14, 1917, and the motion for appeal was made March 6, 1917. It is noticed that' plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the order of appeal, and defendant, appellant, excepted to the jurisdiction of the trial court to try or consider the motion to vacate and rescind its order of appeal, on the ground that the said cause had been lodged in the Court of Appeal. This appears from the reading of the minutes, although the minutes may be somewhat confused.
The appeal had been taken to and lodged in the Court of Appeal, which court transferred the case to this court, as the amount involved exceeded the. limit of the jurisdiction of that court.
3. This ground for dismissal is:
"There was no order for appeal herein, the original order having been vacated by judgment of the trial court."
This point was disposed of under paragraph 2, which says that the minutes of the court show that the order of appeal had not been vacated, but that the exception to the jurisdiction of the court to try the motion to vacate had been sustained.
4. Appellee says:
"There was no appeal bond filed in the trial court."
This is true. But reference to section 19, Act 20 of 1914, p. 57, which is the Employers' Liability Act, provides that:
"Such appeal may be prosecuted by either employer or employé without the necessity of furnishing an appeal bond, and shall suspend the operation of the judgment appealed from."
The motion to dismiss is denied.