Case Name: MARINOVICH'S ESTATE v. JONES
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1917-04-16
Citations: 141 La. 397
Docket Number: No. 20770
Parties: MARINOVICH’S ESTATE v. JONES.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 141
Pages: 397–403

Head Matter:
(75 South. 93)
No. 20770.
MARINOVICH’S ESTATE v. JONES.
(On Motion to Dismiss Appeal, Oct. 19, 1914.
On the Merits, April 16, 1917.)
(Syllabus by the Court.)
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
1. Appeal and Error <&wkey;057(l) — Motion to Dismiss — Remand to Complete Transcript.
Where an appellee moves to dismiss an appeal on the ground that there was no order of appeal, and the appeal bond recites that the order was granted in open court, but the clerk of the district court has omitted from the transcript of appeal an abstract of the minutes of the court, the ease will be remanded to the district court to complete the transcript.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2830, 2831, 2833.]
On the Merits.
2. Vendor and Purchaser &wkey;>342 — Sales— Deficiency in Area — Diminution of Price.
When the purchaser of a tract of land, described in the deed by its name, the section number or numbers, township and range, the area, and the boundaries on all sides, makes no complaint of a failure to get all of the property he thought he was buying, until a survey made several years after the purchase discloses that the area of the land is only about two-thirds of the area stated in the deed, and the purchaser then sues the vendor for the value of the difference between the actual area and the area stated in the deed, the action is governed by the provisions of the Civil Code (Rev. Civ. Code, art. 2498) relating to the action for diminution of the price on account of a deficiency in the quantity or area of the property sold, and not by the provisions (Rev. Civ. Code, arts. 2506, 2511) relating to an action for restitution of a part of the price on account of an eviction from a part of the property.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Vendor and Purchaser, Cent. Dig. §§ 1018, 1019.]
3. Vendor and Purchaser &wkey;>347-^SALEs— Action for Diminution of Price — ^Limitation.
The action for diminution of the price on account of a deficiency in the quantity or area of the land bought must be brought within one year from the date of the contract of sale; otherwise, it is barred. Rev. Civ. Code, art. 2498.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Vendor and Purchaser, Cent. Dig. § 1021.]
Appeal from Eleventh Judicial District Court, Parish of Natchitoches; W. T. Cunningham, Judge.
Suit by the executors of the succession of Mrs. Marie Marinovich against Matthew Jones. Judgment for defendant, and the executors appeal.
Motion to dismiss the appeal denied, and case remanded to district court to allow appellants to have the transcript completed and returned within 30 days, and judgment affirmed.
J. D. Rusca, of Natchitoches, for appellants. Scarborough & Carver, of Natchitoches, for appellee. J. A. Williams, of Colfax, and Smith & Dismukes, of Natchitoches, for J. H. Williams, warrantor. Breazeale & Breazeale, of Natchitoches, for H. & B. Beer, warrantors.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
O'NIELL, J.
The appellee has moved to dismiss this appeal on the grounds: (1) That the appeal bond is not a legal bond; and (2) that the transcript is not complete. In his printed brief in this court he says that there was no order of appeal.
The appellee has not pointed out any illegality or informality in the appeal bond, and we fail to find any defect in it, except that the word "consideration" is used where the word "condition" was intended. This error was probably made in copying the bond into the transcript and is not a sufficient cause for dismissing the appeal.
The certificate of the clerk of court of the correctness and completeness of the transcript is in due form. The record appears to be complete, except that there are certain original documents attached which were filed in evidence and should have been copied into the transcript, and except also that the record does not contain an abstract of the minutes of the district court of the proceedings had in the case.
We do not find an order of appeal in the record; but the appeal bond recites that the appeal was granted in open court, and, without an abstract of the minutes, we are unable to say that the order of appeal was not so granted.
We have concluded not to dismiss the appeal, but to remand the case to the district court to allow the appellant to have the transcript completed, and especially to supply an abstract of the minutes of the proceedings had in this case.
For the reasons assigned, this case is remanded to the district court, allowing the appellant 30 days in which to complete and return the transcript. The costs of appeal are to await the final judgment.