Case Name: MARK vs. THE CHURCH WARDENS OF ST.-MARTINVILLE
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1830-09
Citations: 2 La. 4
Docket Number: 
Parties: MARK vs. THE CHURCH WARDENS OF ST.-MARTINVILLE.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 4–5

Head Matter:
MARK vs. THE CHURCH WARDENS OF ST.-MARTINVILLE.
APPEAR FROM THE COURT OP THE FIFTH DISTRICT, THE JUDGE-OF THE SIXTH PRESIDING.
When a causéis remanded tó-ascertain a question of fact, on an appeal from this judgment, if on an examination of the evidence sent up with the new record, there appears no error in the proceedings of the inferior judge, the judgment will be affirmed. t
This suit is brought on an account exhibited by Francois Marc, nephew and heir of his deceased uncle, who was curate of the Roman Catholic Church of St. Martinsville-, against the Church warden’s to recover a sum of money a!-- leged to have been advanced by the curate in his life time for the use and benefit of the chufch. The delbndant made out an account for fees, for interments and other church services and privileges, which the~~ alleged the curate had received on an account of the Church, and never accounted for them.
Western District
September, 1830.
The plaintiff denied that th~ curate was a salaried minis~ ter, but had a right to use all the fees received or coming to the Church for his services, without being bound to account for them.
The Cc~urt below decided that the curate was not a sa1a~ ned officer, was not bound to account for the fees of th~ Church received by him; and that the 1~eir had a right to recover the monies advanôed by him for the use of the Church.
~SThen a cause i~ tamanded to ascertain a question of~ o~n an appeal froth this jtldg'ment if on an examination of the evi~ence senttipwith the new reco~d~ there appears no error in the proceed~ngs of the infers-~rjudge, the judg-~flent
This case was argued on the facts by Mr. Roman~ ]~ir. $imon and Mr. Brownson for the plaintiff.
Mr. Bowen appeared as sole Counsel for defendants.~

Opinion:
Martin J.
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case was remanded from this Court with a vie1~ of determining a question of fact, on the solution of which we considered its final deciSion depended.
The judgment of the District Court was in favor of the plaintiff; and the defendants have again appealed.
We have given our best attention to the evidence which comes up with the record; and it does not appear to~ us the district judge erred~
It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed thafl the judgment of the Dis&ict (Jourt be affirmed with costs~