Case Name: DALY v. BROCK
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1913-06-30
Citations: 133 La. 752
Docket Number: No. 19,558
Parties: DALY v. BROCK.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 133
Pages: 751–753

Head Matter:
(63 South. 318.)
No. 19,558.
DALY v. BROCK.
(June 30, 1913.
On the Merits, Oct. 20, 1913.)
(Syllabus by the Court.)
1. Appeal and Error (§ 492*) — Suspensive Appeai>-Inscbiption op. Judgment — Cancellation.
Where pending the delay for a suspensive appeal a judgment, appealable to this court, is inscribed in the mortgage office, and the party cast thereafter appeals, the questions of his right to have the inscription canceled and of the jurisdiction of this court to order the cancellation are no longer open.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 2281; Dec. Dig. § 492.*]
On the Merits.
2. Review oe Evidence.
Only questions of fact are presented in this case.
Appeal from Oivil District Court, Parish of Orleans; Porter Parker, Judge.
Action by S. J. Daly against Richard Brock. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals suspensively, and moves for rule to show cause why the inscription of the judgment should not be canceled.
Rule made absolute.
Hubert M. Ansley and Woodville & Wood-ville, alUsP^ew Orleans, for appellant. M. D. Dimitry and Jules A. Grasser, both of New Orleans, for appellee. ■

Opinion:
On Rule.
MONROE, J.
Plaintiff obtained a moneyed judgment against defendant, from which defendant perfected a suspensive appeal to this court, the transcript having been lodged here in July, 1912. He now appears, alleging that the judgment appealed from has- been inscribed in the mortgage office, and operates to prevent his disposing of certain real estate of which he is the owner; and he has ruled the plaintiff and the recorder of mortgages to show cause why the inscription should not be canceled. The recorder admits that the judgment is inscribed, as alleged, but disclaims any personal interest in the matter. Plaintiff admits that it was he who caused the inscription, and alleges that it was done before the appeal was taken. The right of a defendant to have such an inscription canceled, and the jurisdiction of this court to order the cancellation, in a case here pending on appeal, have already been considered and maintained. Cluseau v. Wagner, 126 La. 375, 52 South. 547; Dannenmann v. Charlton, 113 La. 276, 36 South. 965.
Let the rule be made absolute; the recorder directed to cancel the inscription complained of, and S. J. Daly, the plaintiff in the suit, pay the costs of the cancellation and of this proceeding.