Case Name: HADDAD v. COMMERCIAL MOTOR TRUCK CO.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1922-01-02
Citations: 150 La. 327
Docket Number: No. 24148
Parties: HADDAD v. COMMERCIAL MOTOR TRUCK CO.
Judges: O’NIELL, J., concurs in the result, on tiie ground that section 9 of Act No. 112 of 1916 declares that no appeal shall be dismissed on account of any error in the appeal oond; hence it is not important that the motion to dismiss the appeal in this case was filed more than three days after the transcript was filed.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 150
Pages: 327–345

Head Matter:
(90 South. 666)
No. 24148.
HADDAD v. COMMERCIAL MOTOR TRUCK CO.
(Nov. 3, 1920.
On the Merits, May 30, 1921.
On Rehearing, Jan. 2, 1922.
Second Rehearing Denied Jan. 30, 1922.)
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
1. Appeal and error <&wkey;>797(2) — Motion to dismiss three days after transcript filed too late.
A motion to dismiss an appeal because the bond read that the appeal, was returnable to the district court, instead of the Supreme Court, was not entitled to consideration where filed more than three days after the transcript was lodged in the latter court.
On Rehearing.
2. Master and servant <&wkey;405(4) — Compensa-ble injury to driver found dead held not shown.
In a proceeding under the Workmen’s' Compensation Act for the death of a. truck driver who was found dead in the road with bruises on his body and the truck in gear against the stump of a tree by the roadside, evidence held not to warrant a finding that the servant’s death was the result of accident.
3. Master and servant <gs=»405(4) — Compensa-ble injury must be shown to legal certainty.
In a proceeding under the Workmen’s Compensation Act to obtain compensation for death of servant, it is not enough to show that death was probably the result of an accident, but that such was the case must be made out to a legal certainty.
O’Niell and Dawkins, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo; J. R. Land, Judge.
Proceeding by Ossie Haddad under the Workmen’s Compensation Act to obtain compensation for the death of her husband, opposed by the Commercial Motor Truck Company, the employer. There was a judgment allowing compensation, and the employer appeals.
Judgment set aside, and suit dismissed.
Wise, Randolph, Rendall & Freyer, of Shreveport, for appellant.
Murff & Mabry, of Shreveport, for appellee.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
PROVO STX, J.
The appeal in this case is asked to be dismissed because the appeal bond, instead of reading that the appeal is returnable to this court, reads that it is returnable to the First district court of Caddo parish — the very court which rendered the judgment appealed from. Assuming this to have been an irregularity, and even a serious one, the motion to dismiss was filed more than three days after the transcript had been lodged in this court, and therefore too late to be entitled to consideration. In re Lindner, 113 La. 772, 37 South. 720. The transcript was lodged in this court on June 21, 1920; and the motion to dismiss was filed on July 17, 1920.
The motion to dismiss is overruled.
O'NIELL, J., concurs in the result, on tiie ground that section 9 of Act No. 112 of 1916 declares that no appeal shall be dismissed on account of any error in the appeal oond; hence it is not important that the motion to dismiss the appeal in this case was filed more than three days after the transcript was filed.