Case Name: HAUCH v. E. C. DREW INV. CO.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1906-03-26
Citations: 116 La. 488
Docket Number: No. 15,812
Parties: HAUCH v. E. C. DREW INV. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 116
Pages: 488–490

Head Matter:
(40 South. 847.)
No. 15,812.
HAUCH v. E. C. DREW INV. CO.
(March 26, 1906.)
Appeal—Dismissal.
Where a judgment maintaining an exception of no cause of action is rendered, and the suit dismissed, an appeal is premature until the judgment has been signed, and will be dismissed.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 2, Cent. Dig. Appeal and Error, § 1877.]
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from Sixth Judicial District Court, Parish of Onaehita; Luther Egbert Hall, Judge.
Action by Arthur Haueh against the E. C. Drew Investment Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Dismissed.
James Francis Pierson and Peter Stifft, for appellant. Stubbs & Russell, for appellee.

Opinion:
MONROE, J.
This is a suit for the recovery of damages alleged to have arisen ex contractu, which was dismissed upon an exception of no cause of action. It appears, however, that the judgment from which the plaintiff has attempted to appeal was not signed, and the appellee moves to dismiss the appeal on that ground. The motion must be sustained. To quote the language of this court, in a case heretofore decided:
"The effect of the decree of the district court, sustaining the exception of no cause of action, is necessarily in the nature of a final judgment, and has the effect of terminating the litigation upon the issue stated. In other words, the same suit could not be renewed and another judgment provoked on the same cause of action. Such being the case, the appeal is necessarily premature." Nicholls v. Maddox, 52 La. Ann. 496, 26 South. 994.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the appeal herein be dismissed, at the cost of the appellant.