Case Name: FULLER BROS. v. DUKE; S. S. GULLATT & BROS. v. DUKE et al. (MATHEWS Intervener). In re MATHEWS
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1909-10-20
Citations: 124 La. 396
Docket Number: No. 17,927
Parties: FULLER BROS. v. DUKE. S. S. GULLATT & BROS. v. DUKE et al. (MATHEWS Intervener). In re MATHEWS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 124
Pages: 395–397

Head Matter:
(50 South. 433.)
No. 17,927.
FULLER BROS. v. DUKE. S. S. GULLATT & BROS. v. DUKE et al. (MATHEWS Intervener). In re MATHEWS.
(Oct. 20, 1909.)
Courts (§ 224*) — Review—Jurisdiction of Supreme Court.
To warrant an application to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, or review, to review a judgment of the Court of Appeal, the case must present exceptional features, or otherwise the determination of the Court of Appeal will, in view of the Constitution, be deemed final.
TEd. Note. — For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. §§ 487, G08-G18; Dec. Dig. § 224.*]
Consolidated actions between Fuller Bros, and .1. P. Duke, and between S. S. Gullatt & Bros, against J. P. Duke and others, in which Charles Mathews intervenes. From the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the intervener applies for certiorari or writ of review.
Refused.
J. B. Holstead, for applicant.

Opinion:
NICI-IOLLS, J.
There is nothing special in this case to take it out of the class of cases which the Constitution contemplated should, on determination of the issues therein in the Court of Appeal, become closed and final, even if there -might be error as between the parties in the litigation therein. We have endeavored to save much unnecessary expense to litigants and to avoid great and very burdensome labor being thrown upon 'this court through attempts to convert it into an ordinary court of appeal. We repeat. what we have often said before, that to warrant an application for a writ of review the case sought to be reviewed should present exceptional features.
The present application is refused.