Case Name: MITCHAM v. MITCHAM et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1935-11-04
Citations: 165 So. 635
Docket Number: No. 33539
Parties: MITCHAM v. MITCHAM et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Southern Reporter
Volume: 165
Pages: 635–638

Head Matter:
184 La. 111
MITCHAM v. MITCHAM et al.
No. 33539.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Nov. 4, 1935.
On Rehearing, Feb. 3, 1936.
Goff & Goff, of Arcadia, for appellants.
Bergeron & Rabun, of Farmerville, for appellee.

Opinion:
BRUNOT, Justice.
There was judgment for the plaintiff in the court of original jurisdiction. The defendants perfected a suspensive appeal from the judgment, returnable to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit. After the case was submitted in the Court of Appeal, that court found that it was without jurisdiction ratione materise and it entered the following order: script may be made up and filed in the Supreme Court, in keeping with its rules, within thirty days from date hereof." 160 So. 14S.
"It is therefore ordered that this appeal be transferred to the Supreme Court. The clerk of .this court is ordered to transmit the record to the clerk of the Third district court of Union parish that tran-
The motion to dismiss is based upon two alleged facts, viz.: That the transcript was not filed in the Supreme Court timely, and that no extension of time within which to file the transcript in this court was applied for or granted.
It appears that the order or judgment of the Court of Appeal was rendered on April 1, 1935, and that the transcript was filed in this court June 28, 1935. It is, therefore, a fact that the transcript was not filed timely, and this court has judicial knowledge of the fact that no application has been made to it for an extension of time within which to file it. C.P. arts. 587, 883.
It is the duty of the appellants to file the transcript. Abraham v. Wallenberg, 130 La. 1096, 58 So. 895. Where transcript is filed after delays for filing have expired, a motion to dismiss the appeal must prevail. Whitney Central Trust & Savings Bank v. Greenwood Planting & Manufacturing Co., Ltd., 146 La. 572, 83 So. 834. In the transfer of a case by the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court, it is the duty of the Court of Appeal to fix the return day. Act No. 19 of 1912, amending and re-enacting Act No. 56 of 1904; Scott v. Ratcliff, 167 La. 237, 239, 119 So. 33.
For the reasons assigned, the motion to dismiss this appeal is maintained, and the appeal is therefore dismissed, at appellants' cost.