Case Name: Patrick Higgins vs. C. C. Haley
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1876-02
Citations: 28 La. Ann. 216
Docket Number: No. 6119
Parties: Patrick Higgins vs. C. C. Haley.
Judges: MORGAN, J. I concur in this opinion.
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 216–219

Head Matter:
No. 6119.
Patrick Higgins vs. C. C. Haley.
This caso being before this court in April, 1871, ivas remanded with direction to the district j udgo to hear the testimony offered by plaintiff on his motion for a new trial. This decree divested this court of jurisdiction and placed the ease before the court a exaa for the purpose of hearing evidence and trying the motion for a now trial. This trial was subsequently had, according to the direction from this court, tho testimony heard, found ineffective, and tho rule for a now trial discharged.
Instead of taking an appeal from the final judgment on tho merits after the discharge of tho rule for a new trial, tho counsel of plaintiff and defendant agreed to submit the, case on tho record on file in this court when the judgment of April, 1871, was rendered, no timo being fixed for said submission. The matter was delayed for more than twelve months, and was neglected on account of tho ill-health of plaintiff’s counsel.
Plaintiff now takes a rule on defendant to show cause why the agreement should not bo carried into effect and tho caso submitted on the old record on file in this court at the. timo the case was decided in April, 1874. But when that decision was rendered, this court was divested of jurisdiction, and tho ease passed as fully under the control of the district court as If no appeal had been taken.
More than one year has elapsed, and there has been no order of appeal granted by the judge; no bond has been filed, and no transcript. Assuming- that tho agreement of counsel eould bo substituted for an order of appeal and bond, no action has been taken thereon within tho time allowed for tho exercise of tho right of an appeal. The agreement of counsel can not vest this court with jurisdiction of a ease in the absence of an order of appeal and an appeal bond. Tho Code of Practice points out the form to be pursued to transfer jurisdiction from tho inferior courts to the Supremo Court. The rule must bo discharged.
ON plaintiffs motion that defendant show cause at the time fixed why the agreement to submit the above entitled caso should not be submitted on the briefs now on file and to be filed within ten days.
Hays & Hew, for plaintiff.
J. Livingston, for defendant.

Opinion:
Wyly, J.
In April, 1874, this case was before this court and the judgment was annulled and reversed, and the case remanded with direction to the district judge to hear tho testimony offered by plaintiff on his mo tion for a new trial on tlio ground that tho jury had been improperly influenced. See the case reported in 26 An. 868. This decree divested this court of jurisdiction and placed the case before the court a qua for the purpose of hearing evidence and trying the motion for new trial. This trial was subsequently had, and the mover failed to establish tho .charge that the jury had been improperly influenced, and tho court therefore discharged tho rule for a new trial. Instead of taking an appeal from the final judgment on the merits after the rule for now trial .was discharged, tho counsel for plaintiff and defendant agreed to submit the case on the record on file in this court at tho time the judgment of April, 1874, was rendered.
No time was fixed within which said submission of the case should be made. The matter was delayed for more than twelve months, and was neglected on account of the ill-health of plaintiffs counsel.
Plaintiff now takes a rule on defendant to show cause why the agreement should not bo carried into effect and tho case submitted on tho old record on file in this court when the case was decided in April, 1874.
When tho decision of 1874 was rendered this court was divested of jurisdiction, and tho case passed as fully under the control of tho district court as if no appeal had been taken. Now, what gives this court jurisdiction ? More than one year has passed and there has been no order of •appeal granted by tho judge, no bond has been filed, and no transcript lias boon filed. Is tho judgment of the court below to stand forever ? Assuming that the agreement of counsel could bo substituted for an order of appeal and bond, no action has been taken thereon within tho time allowed for tho exercise of the right of an appeal.
But the agreement of counsel can not vest this court with jurisdiction of a case in the absence of an order of appeal and an appeal bond. See tho cases of Dupré vs. Mouton, 23 An. 543; Norris vs. Warren, 22 An. 458; Louisiana State Bank vs. Barrow, 24 An. 276; Moore vs. Simms, 21 An. 649.
Tho Code of Practice points out the form to be pursued to transfer jurisdiction from tho inferior court to the Supreme Court.
It is therefore ordered that the rule herein bo discharged at tho costs of the mover.