Case Name: Lazar Baham v. Jacob H. Langfield and N. Galatas, Sheriff
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1861-03
Citations: 16 La. Ann. 156
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lazar Baham v. Jacob H. Langfield and N. Galatas, Sheriff.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 16
Pages: 156–157

Head Matter:
Lazar Baham v. Jacob H. Langfield and N. Galatas, Sheriff.
Where defendants take separate appeals and file distinct bonds, one trauscript will suffice. A doubtful error in the record, not essential, will not be sufficient ground for dismissal.
The Sheriff is the officer of the law charged under the writ of execution with certain duties, and his acts (where there is no improper interference on the part of the creditor) are at the risk of the defendant in execution who has it in his power to dispense with the services of the Sheriff by paying the debt.
Asale of the debtor’s property and the execution of a twelve months bond does not discharge the judgment.
Appeal from the District Court of the Parish of St. Tammany, Martin, J.
A. Hennen and J. B. Grayson, for plaintiff. Jesse JR. Jones, for defendants and appellants.

Opinion:
Merrick, C. J.
The appellee moves to dismiss the appeal in this case, on the ground that the transcript is incomplete, as appears by the certificate of the clerk, —and because each defendant took a separate appeal, and but one imperfect transcript has been filed. The clerk's certificate is in the usual form, but is followed by a qualification annexed to the statement that the transcript contains all the evidence adduced, viz : " Except the second advertisement of timber referred to in the Sheriff's return, p. 51, and in testimony of D. Tally, page 20, which 2d advertisement I have no knowledge of — do not recollect even having seen it, and it cannot be found in my office." There is nothing in the note of the testimony to show that the document referred to by the clerk was offered in evidence, and the testimony renders it doubtful whether any such document ever existed. The appellant cannot be deprived of his appeal by a statement of this kind volúnteered by the clerk. It may well be treated as surplussage.
On the second ground it is sufficient to observe, that we have one complete transcript containing the bonds of both appellants before us, and nothing would b.e gained by filing another transcript, except additional costs to the officers of court.
The motion to dismiss, is overruled.