Case Name: A. D. Coco v. T. E. Thienman et als.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1873-03
Citations: 25 La. Ann. 236
Docket Number: No. 4556
Parties: A. D. Coco v. T. E. Thienman et als.
Judges: Justices concurring: Ludeling, Taliaferro, Howell, Wyly, Morgan.
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 25
Pages: 236–237

Head Matter:
No. 4556.
A. D. Coco v. T. E. Thienman et als.
A record is not defective because certain documents were omitted wbicb had been offered to prove a fact admited in said record. There was therefore no necessity to copy them in the transcript.
Where the motion to dismiss the appeal is on the grounds that the sheriff who is party to the-suit is not a party to the appeal, and that the sureties to the injunction bond are notparties to the appeal as they did not sign the appeal bond;
Hold — That these grounds are not valid, because the ap; eal having been taken by motion in open court at the time when the judgment was rendered, all who are not appellants are appellees in the case.
Where a piece of property was bought at a tax sale, the deed for it made out by the sheriff and duly recorded in the office of the recorder of the parish, and said property was-seized by a creditor of its former owners, who treated tlie tax sale as an absolute nullity, and who, being injoined by said purchaser, proposed in the injunction suit to attack the title by showing irregularities and defects in the proceedings preceding the tax sale;-
.Held — That on its face the title of the purchaser is regular, that he is in possession under a recorded title, that by a special provision of the constitution, article 118, the deed of sale is prvma facie evidence as to the title, that it is declared valid by section 59 of the-act of 1872, Ho. 42, and that for these reasons the injunction must be maintained.
APPEAL from the Seventh District Court, parish of Avoyelles. Butler, J.
Irion & Thorpe, for plaintiff and appellant. IMmards■ & JDucote, for defendants and appellees.
Justices concurring: Ludeling, Taliaferro, Howell, Wyly, Morgan.

Opinion:
Ludeling, C. J.
A motion to dismiss the appeal has been made, on the following grounds : That the record is defective, a part of the evidence offered, not being in the transcript j that the sheriff,, w.ho-is a party to the suit is not a party to this appeal; and that the sureties to the injunction bond are not made parties to the appeal as they did not sign the appeal bond.
The fact, to prove which the documents omitted were offered, is admitted in the record — there was no necessity therefore to copy them in the transcript. The appeal was taken by motion in open court at the term when the judgment was rendered. All who are not appellants .are appellees in this case.