Case Name: The State ex rel. D'Amico & Sidotti vs. The Judge of the First City Court
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1894-03
Citations: 46 La. Ann. 365
Docket Number: No. 11,446
Parties: The State ex rel. D’Amico & Sidotti vs. The Judge of the First City Court.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 46
Pages: 365–367

Head Matter:
No. 11,446.
The State ex rel. D’Amico & Sidotti vs. The Judge of the First City Court.
A mandamus to compel the inferior court to hear witnesses to confirm a default will not issue when, since the application of plaintiff to confirm the default, the defendant in the lower court has filed his answer.
In proceedings before the City Courts no default preliminary to judgment against defendant is required. Code of Practice, Arts. 582, 583.
Nor can these courts by their rules require such default.
The writs under Art. 90 of the Constitution will not issue when it is apparent they can serve no purpose.
^PPLIOATION for Mandamus.
Branch K. Miller Attorney for Relator:
Preliminary defaults need not be talren before justice of the peace courts, as is done before district courts.
Defaults and delays in the city courts are provided for by Arts. 1084 and 1055, O. F., and do not include preliminary defaults required before the district courts. Sec. 7, Act 45 of 1880 43 An. et seq. 177; 39 An. 990 et seq.; 37 An. 844.
William O. Dufour for the Responde t.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Miller, J.
This is an application for a writ of mandamus to direct the judge of the First Oity Oourt to hear witnesses to prove plaintiff's demand in the suit of D'Amico et al. vs. Canuza. The complaint of relator here, the plaintiff in the lower court, is, that the judge refused to hear the witnesses, on the ground that no default had then been taken. The answer of the respondent judge is, that the rules of the court required a default to be taken before the proof could be administered, and under the rules three days after default before confirmation of the judgment; and he further shows that defendant in the suit has, since the application of plantiff to prove his demand, filed his answer, and it is now too late to hear witnesses and render judgment as of date January 9, the date of plaintiff's application.
There is no power in this court to order the withdrawal of the answer of defendant filed in the lower court. The relator here, will necessarily have to fix the case for trial and prove the demand. It would, therefore, accomplish no purpose were we to hold that the respondent judge should have heard the plaintiff's witnesses when he offered them.
The writ is therefore refused at relator's cost.