Case Name: SHNAIDER v. GRAFFAGNINI
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1923-06-30
Citations: 154 La. 363
Docket Number: No. 25886
Parties: SHNAIDER v. GRAFFAGNINI.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 154
Pages: 364–369

Head Matter:
(97 South. 491)
No. 25886.
SHNAIDER v. GRAFFAGNINI.
(On Motion to Dismiss April 30, 1923.
On the Merits, June 30, 1923.)
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
On Motion to Dismiss.
1. Appeal and] error <&wkey;>805 — Application for new order of appeal for sole purpose of having further copies of record made held not abandonment of appeal.
Where, in case transferred from Court of Appeal to Supreme Court, appellant applied to district court for another order of appeal for sole purpose of having three copies of transcript made and furnished to the Supreme Court, after appellee had objected to use of the original record, there was no abandonment of the appeal.
On the Merits.
2. Appeal and error <&wkey;253 — Overruling of objection to tiling of answer not reviewed when not excepted to.
Where plaintiff’s objection to filing of answer because not filed at same time as exceptions was overruled and plaintiff took no exception, he acquiesced in the ruling, and it could not be reviewed.
3. Appeal and error <&wkey;>l050(2), 1056(2)— Rulings admitting or excluding immaterial and irrelevant testimony afford no substantial ground for complaint.
Rulings admitting or excluding testimony when merely affecting immaterial and irrelevant testimony afford no substantial basis for complaint.
4. Appeal and error <&wkey;>994(3) — Conclusions of trial judge as to credibility and weight of testimony to be given great weight.
The conclusions of the trial judge with respect to the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony are entitled to great weight.
5. Landlord and tenant <©=»108(1) — Letter from landlord’s counsel of which landlord had no knowledge held not notice demanding prompt payment.
Where landlord had no knowledge of contents of letter written tenant by his counsel, stating that, if rent was not paid promptly when due, the landlord would govern himself accordingly, until long after its receipt by the tenant, it did not amount to demand by landlord for prompt payment.
6.Landlord and tenant <&wkey;308(3) — Evidence as to delay in payment of rent for other months held tp sustain verdict for tenant in summary proceeding.
In summary proceeding by landlord for possession for failure to pay monthly rent until two days after it was due, evidence as to payment and acceptance of rent for other months after it was due, in connection with the fact that no demand was made, held to support verdict for the tenant.
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; E. K. Skinner, Judge.
Suit by Adolph Shnaider against J. J. Graffagnini. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Herbert W. Kaiser and Fred A. Wulff, Jr., both of New Orleans, for appellant
Paul W. Maloney, of New Orleans, for appellee.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
DAWKINS, J.
Appellee has moved to dismiss this appeal under the following circumstances :
The appeal was first taken to the Court of Appeal for the Parish of Orleans, and appellee there moved to dismiss upon the ground that that court was without jurisdiction ratione materias, since the suit involved a lease whose alleged unexpired term was for three years at $900 a year. Appellant acquiesced in that view and prayed the court to transfer the case to this court under the statute, which was done. Counsel for appellant then asked the Chief Justice of this court to permit the original record to come here without the necessity of making three copies, which was objected to by counsel for appellee. Counsel for appellant then presented to the district court a motion setting up these facts, including the necessity of having the three copies of this transcript, and accordingly prayed for another order of appeal for the sole purpose of having these copies made and furnished to this court.
In these circumstances, it is clear that there was no intention to abandon the appeal, and appellant was merely attempting in good faith to comply with the rule of this court requiring the filing of three copies of the record.
The motion to dismiss is therefore denied.