Case Name: State v. McDonald & Al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1841-01
Citations: 17 La. 485
Docket Number: 
Parties: State v. McDonald & Al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 17
Pages: 293–294

Head Matter:
State v. McDonald & Al.
The law expressly requires that all final judgments shall he signed before execution can issue. It is not enough for the judge merely to sign the minutes of the proceedings of the court — 0. P. S46; 4 K.5&
Appeal from the court of the fourth district, for the parish of Iberville, the judge thereof presiding.
This case comes up on an injunction. The State obtained a judgment against the defendant and his surety, in a recognizance or bail bond for the sum of §1000. The judgment had never been signed; only the minutes of the proceedings of the court at the close of the term. Execution issued on this judgment, and the sheriff was proceeding to make the money by a seizure and sale of the defendants’ property. They applied for and obtained an injunction, on the ground, mainly, that the judgment against them was not executory, having never been signed according to law.
On hearing the case on the injunction, the .district judge decided that in the country the practice was for the judge to sign the minutes of the proceedings of the court at the close of term; that this was a sufficient signing in the view of the law. There was judgment dissolving the injunction, and the defendants appealed.
Roselins, attorney general, for the State. .
G. B. Taylor for the defendants.

Opinion:
Mastín, J.
delivered the opinion of the court.
The defendants are appellants from a judgment dissolving an injunction, which they had obtained to prevent the execution of a writ of fieri, facias, which had issued on a judgment before it had been made final by the signature of the judge.
The judgment was not signed, but the district court decided that the signature of the judge to a judgment is not essential to its maturity in the [486] country, where the judge a quo informs us it is the practice for the judge to sign the minutes on the last day of the term; all the judgments being entered thereon.
The court, in our opinion, erred. The Oode of Practice expressly requires the signature of the judge to all final judgments, art. 54G. He is first required to x'ender his judgments in open court, and thx-ee days thei'eafter to sign them. His attention is called to them after the thx-ee days are allowed to him for x-eflection, and if no application is made for a new trial, he is to sign them. The law is absolutely silent as to the signature of the minutes by the judge on the rising of the court. It is, however, a prudent measure; but it cannot relieve the judge from the obligation imposed on Mm hy law, to recur to his judgments three days after their rendition, and to make them final hy affixing his signature thereto.
It is therefoi'e ordered, adjudged and decx-eed, that the judgment be-annulled, avoided and reversed; and that the injunction be reinstated and pex-petuated.