Case Name: Bertha Louis vs. Widow Pepin, Tutrix, et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1876-11
Citations: 28 La. Ann. 875
Docket Number: No. 4840
Parties: Bertha Louis vs. Widow Pepin, Tutrix, et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 875–877

Head Matter:
No. 4840.
Bertha Louis vs. Widow Pepin, Tutrix, et al.
'The motion to dismiss the appeal comes too late. It should have been made within three judicial days after the record was filed in this court.
This suit is brought before the Sixth District Court against the minor heirs of J. J\ Pepin, to annul a lease for certain alleged causes and for damages. Defendants have excepted to the jurisdiction on the ground that, under the last clause of section 2011, Revised Statutes, it should have been brought in the Second District Court. The objection is not well founded.
The last clause of the section aforesaid must be construed in connection with the preceding clauses and must be held to refer to all matters in which minors may be'interested in the course of the administration of estates falling to them. Any other construction would give the Second District Court exclusive jurisdiction of all suits in which minors might be interested in any degree, as plaintiffs and defendants, co-plaintiffs and co-defendants, which is inconsistent with the first clause of the section and the provision of the constitution on the subject.
APPEAL from the Sixth District Court, parish of Orleans. Saucier, J.
B. JR. Forman, for plaintiff and appellant.
E. Bermudez, for defendants and appellees.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
Morgan, J.
The record was filed in this court on the fifth of November, 1873. On the twenty-second of December, 1875, appellees moved to dismiss the appeal, on the grounds that the transcript does not purport to contain all the proceedings had, documents filed, testimony and evidence adduced, in the suit, but merely such as was offered on the trial of the exception; that a number of documents forming part of the record of the lower court, and which the lower court had before it when it decided the exception, were omitted from the transcript, which should have been included therein, and that said omission is attributable to the appellant; that these documents would enable this court to revise the judgment appealed from, and are necessary to that end, and that the record being incomplete and mutilated by the fault of the appellant, the appeal should be dismissed. The motion comes too late. It should have been made within three judicial days after the record was filed here. 17 An. 21; 18 An. 191; 19 An. 276.
Motion dismissed.