Case Name: RAPHIEL v. LOUISIANA RY. & NAV. CO.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1920-05-03
Citations: 155 La. 590
Docket Number: No. 23946
Parties: RAPHIEL v. LOUISIANA RY. & NAV. CO.
Judges: By the WHOLE COURT as then constituted.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 155
Pages: 590–598

Head Matter:
(99 South. 459)
No. 23946.
RAPHIEL v. LOUISIANA RY. & NAV. CO.
(May 3, 1920.
On the Merits, Jan. 21, 1924. Rehearing Denied by Division A March 3, 1924.)
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
U Appeal and error <3=553(1) — Appeal from default judgment will not be dismissed because testimony not reduced to writing.
Code Prac. arts. 602, 603, requiring the district judge under certain circumstances to furnish a statement of facts on which the judgj ment was rendered, are applicable to a case where judgment has gone by default and the testimony was not reduced to writing; hence a motion by plaintiff to dismiss an appeal by defendant from a default judgment on the ground that the testimony was not reduced to writing must be overruled. t
On the Merits.
2. Judgment <3=138(1) — Valid default judgment will not be set aside merely to allow defendant opportunity to defend on ground that action would be in furtherance of justice.
No court- may legally set aside a judgment by default confirmed in strict conformity of all requirements of law in order to afford defendant an opportunity to offer a defense solely on the alleged ground that such action would be in furtherance of justice under Civ. Code, art. 21.
3. Carriers <3=134 — Judgment for plaintiff for damages to shipment of cotton sustained.
In a shipper’s action against the carrier for damages to a shipment of cotton, evidence, held sufficient to sustain a judgment for plaintiff.
4. Abatement and revival <§=>81 — Plea to jurisdiction ratione person» too late when first made on motion to reopen. '
In an action by a shipper against a carrier for damages to a shipment of cotton, a plea to the jurisdiction ratione person» was to'o late when first made on motion to reopen case after judgment for plaintiff.
5. Abatement and revival <§=81 — Plea to jurisdiction rati one materi» may be noticed at any time.
A plea to the jurisdiction of the court ratione materi» may be noticed at any time.
6. Judgment <§=>237(1) — Judgment against one of two defendants sued in solido held proper.
Where a shipper sued a railroad company and a commission merchant for damages to a shipment of cottQn, seeking to recover in solido against both, a judgment against the carrier for the whole damage was not improper under the pleadings.
Appeal from the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Parish of Natchitoches; W. T. Cunningham, Judge.
Action by I. Raphiel against the Louisiana Railway & Navigation Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Motion-to dismiss appeal denied, and judgment affirmed.
Wise, Randolph, Rendall & Ereyer, of Shreveport, for appellant.
Breazeale &. Breazeale, of Natchitoches, for appellee.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
By the WHOLE COURT as then constituted.
O'NIELL, J.
Plaintiff, appellee, has moved to dismiss this appeal because the testimony, on which the judgment by default was confirmed, was not reduced to writing. He contends that articles 602 and 603 of the Code of Practice, requiring the district judge, under certain circumstances, to furnish a statement of facts upon which the judgment was rendered, do not apply to a case where the judgment went by default, and the testimony was not required to be reduced to writing.
We are not referred to any ruling in support of appellee's contention. On the contrary, in Fletcher v. Ozone Lumber Co., 123 La. 514, 49 South. 158, articles 602 and 603 of the Code of Practice were considered as applicable to a case like this, where judgment had gone by default and the cestimony was not reduced to writing.
The district judge certified, in his statement of facts, that counsel for plaintiff and defendant were unable to agree upon a statement of facts.
Counsel for appellee do not deny that the judge's statement of facts is correct. Their contention is merely that the judge's statement cannot be taken as a substitute for an exact record of the testimony which was not required to be reduced to writing. The provisions of the Code of Practice being otherwise, the motion to dismiss the appeal must be overruled. Whether the facts as stated by the district judge are sufficient to sustain the judgment, appealed from is the question to be decided when the case shall have been submitted on its merits.
The motion to dismiss the appeal is overruled.