Case Name: SCIORTINO v. BANK OF WHITE CASTLE. In re SCIORTINO
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1910-10-31
Citations: 127 La. 215
Docket Number: No. 18,371
Parties: SCIORTINO v. BANK OF WHITE CASTLE. In re SCIORTINO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 127
Pages: 216–220

Head Matter:
(53 South. 528.)
No. 18,371.
SCIORTINO v. BANK OF WHITE CASTLE. In re SCIORTINO.
(Oct. 31, 1910.)
(Syllabus by the Court.)
1. Judgment on Rehearing.
The judgment on rehearing was rendered and filed days after the 1st of June.
2. Certiorari (§ 40*) — Time eor Application —Dismissal.
Thirty days had not elapsed after the judgment had been rendered and filed to the date that relator’s application was filed in the clerk’s office of the Supreme Court.
[Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Certiorari, Cent. Dig. § 58; Dec. Dig. § 40.*]
3. Judgment oe District Court.
The judgment of the district court held that the preponderance of the evidence was with defendant.
4. Decision Affirmed.
The decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
5. Banks and Banking (§ 154*) — Payment oe Forged Check — Sufficiency oe Evidence.
A careful review of the evidence, as stated by the Court of Appeals (the relator produced no other), has resulted in convincing this court that plaintiff did not have good ground of action.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Banks and Banking, Cent. Dig. §§ 502-533; Dec. Dig. § 154.*]
6. Review on Appeal.
The questions of law were with defendant.
7. Correct Judgment.
The judgment is correct and legal.
Action by S. Sciortino against the Bank of White Castle. Judgment for defendant was affirmed by the Court of Appeal, and plaintiff applies for certiorari or writ of review.
Motion to recall and dismiss the preliminary order overruled, and application denied.
A. L. Grace, for applicant. C. S. Hebert, for respondent.

Opinion:
On Motion to Recall and Dismiss the Preliminary Order.
BREAUX, C. J.
The court holds that the decision on rehearing having been rendered and signed on June 1, 1910, at Covington, in the parish of St. Tammany, it was not possible to file it on the 1st day of July, 1910. The distance between the two places, Covington and Plaquemine, was too great to permit of such filing on the day last mentioned.
The decision must have been filed later than on the last-mentioned day.
The number of days later is not anywhere stated in the record, although there is a notice, which was recently sent here, signed by the clerk of court, to show that it was filed on the 3d day of June.
It not being made to appear in a legal manner that the 30 days had elapsed from the date of filing by the clerk of the Circuit Court of Appeal to the date that the application for the writ was filed in this court, the application to dismiss is overruled.
The Evangeline Case cited by applicant, 52 South. 388, 126 La. 243 (No. 18,173), is not pertinent. The facts were different.
In the cited case it abundantly appeared that the 30 days had elapsed.
Motion to recall the preliminary order is overruled.