Case Name: The New Orleans City Railroad Company vs. The Crescent City Railroad Company
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1881-11
Citations: 33 La. Ann. 1273
Docket Number: No. 8137
Parties: The New Orleans City Railroad Company vs. The Crescent City Railroad Company.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 33
Pages: 1273–1279

Head Matter:
No. 8137.
The New Orleans City Railroad Company vs. The Crescent City Railroad Company.
On Motion to Dismiss.
This Court cannot take cognizance of evidence outside of the Transcript, in support of the charge of Appellant’s acquiescence in the judgment appealed from. The case must he remanded for the purpose of such investigation. »
It is only when the fact alleged on one side is expressly admitted on the other, that the remanding is unnecessary. The jurisdiction of this Court in such cases clearly defined.
When an Appeal is taken from the decree of a State Court ordering the removal of the case to the United States Circuit Court, under the laws of Congress, and the Appellant himself files the Record in the Federal Court and there moves for the dissolution of the Injunction granted by the State Court, there is an acquiescence hy the Appellant in the judgment appealed from and the Appeal will he dismissed hy this Court.
APPEAL from the Civil District Court, parish of Orleans. Monroe, J.
Carleton Hunt for Plaintiff and Appellee:
A party who acquiesces in a judgment rendered against him hy voluntarily executing the same cannot appeal therefrom. C. P. 567.
This Court will take judicial notice in an especial manner of the course of proceeding, the decision and: the jurisprudence of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, District of Louisiana.
John M. Bonner for Defendant and Appellant:
First — The Supreme Court will consider original evidence when all parties consent. 3 An. 115; 28 An. 274.
Second — The doctrine of acquiescence is not applicable to the decrees or orders of a judge* transferring a cause from a court of general jurisdiction to a tribunal of limited jurisdiction. A judgment can only be acquiesced in when it can be voluntarily executed. And courts of limited jurisdiction depend for the exercise of their functions on the law, and not on the consent of litigants. 22 An. 81, 134; 27 An. 625.
Third — The necessity of the State and Federal Circuit Courts being certain of their jurisdiction, before proceeding with a cause, is enforced by the nullity that attaches to their actions when they are without jurisdiction. 9 Otto,-80; 29 An. 372; 29 An. 400; 10 Otto, 457; Dillon on Removal of Causes, 3d ed. p. 130.
Fourth — The rule enforced in Federal Courts, that a party loses none of Ms rights by contesting tbe case in the State Court, after it bas refused the application for a removal, should be equally applicable to the State Courts. 19 Wall. 214; The Removal Cases, 10 Otto, 475; Dillon on Removal of Causes, 3d ed. p. 130.
Fifth — Tbe cause was jurisdictionally removed into the TJ. S. Circuit Court when the order of removal was signed by the District Judge, and the injunction granted by tbe State Court remained in full force by tbe very terms of tbe statute, until modified or dissolved by the Circuit Court. Act March 3, 1875, §§ 3, 4.
As soon as a copy of the record from the State Court was filed, the jurisdiction of the Circuit, which was before theoretical, became real. 4 Sawyer, TJ. S. C. C. R. 290, 291; Dillon on Removal of Causes, 3d ed. §§ 78 and 80.
fciiffch — Defendant did not consent to go into the Federal Court by taking up tbe record, but simply prevented the plaintiff from putting the record into its pocket until the 4th Monday of April, 1881, and in this manner keeping its injunction in force without having it contested.

Opinion:
Motion to Dismiss.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Poché, J.
Appellee moves to dismiss the present appeal on the ground that appellant has acquiesced in the judgment appealed from. The appeal is taken from a decree, rendered on plaintiff's petition, ordering the removal of the cause to the United States Circuit Court.
Appellee charges that appellant has acquiesced in the judgment of removal by voluntarily appearing before the Circuit Court, and filing therein, and arguing by counsel, a motion to dissolve an injunction previously rendered in favor of plaintiff by the Civil District Court. To the motion of dismissal are annexed two documents; one, a certificate of the clerk of the Circuit Court, tending to show the appearance of appellant, and the other, a certified copy of the motion filed by appellant in that court, for the dissolution of the injunction, and of other proceedings had in the cause.
These documents come before us as original evidence, which, as an appellate court, we cannot consider. The question as to the power of this Court to pass upon evidence, outside of the transcript, in support of the charge of appellant's acquiescence in a judgment appealed from, was at one time involved in some doubt.
But the doubt has been completely dispelled by the more recent decisions of this Court, and we consider the negative of that proposition as firmly settled.
The rule is now that the trial of such a question, requiring the investigation of original evidence, must be remanded to the court a qua; see case of Stinson vs. O'Neal, Opinion Book 52, page 390; 29 An. 576; 28 An. 274.
Appellee's counsel suggests that we must take judicial cognizance of the matters and facts, recited and contained in the documents annexed to his motion, and supports his views by the following quotation from Greenleaf:
" Courts take notice of courts of general jurisdiction, their judges, their seals, their rules and maxims in the administration of justice and course of proceeding." Greenlf. on Evid., vol. , J 6. "In fine, courts will generally take notice of whatever ought to be generally known within the limits of their jurisdiction." (Id.)
We fully recognize the doctrine thus laid down, which has always been practically followed by this Court.
But the doctrine cannot be extended so as to authorize this Court to take judicial cognizance of the appearance, acts and pleadings or motions of litigants in the Federal courts, or even in our own State courts.
The issue presented by the present motion necessitates a finding or decision on a question of fact, of which we cannot assume original jurisdiction.
It is, therefore, ordered that the question whether appellant has acquiesced in the judgment appealed from, be referred to the court a qua for trial according to law; and that its finding and judgment upon that issue be sent up to this Court in due eourse.