Case Name: Succession of Stafford
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1847-09
Citations: 2 La. Ann. 886
Docket Number: 
Parties: Succession of Stafford.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 886–887

Head Matter:
Succession of Stafford.
'Where raí incidental contest arose, in-the pi-ogress.of an action for tlie-settlement of a partnership, as to the payment of anote to a receiver appointed by the coart, which was cumuilated with the main action, bat had noconnection with the other matters iu contest, an ex- : tract from1 the record,-containing all-the proceedings relative to the note, will be admissible in evidence,'though objected to -as not being a complete transcript of all- the proceedings in the case, where the whole would have been attended with heavy expense, and-the nature Of the case shows that there was no necessity for prodacing-the whole.record. Per Curiam: In mortuary and insolvent proceedings, which are frequently voluminous, and in which all incidental contests are cumulated, the production of the entire record has never been required iu practice, and we kuow of no reason why it .should be.
Appeal frora-'the District-Court of Avoyelles, Farrar, S.
iJSdelen, for fho appellant. IT. 'ITaylor and Sioayze, contr&.

Opinion:
Tire judgment,of the court -was pronounced by
Eustis, C. J.
The question about which the parties to this suit-are at law iis, whether anote of the deceased, for-Spl,4d8 07, to the-order.of Conner, Griddey & Co. has bean paid ? As an issue has been made as to that,-fact by the ¡pleadings, we do.not deem it maternal ¡to notice any matters which the case (presents, except as they relate-to that issue. Whitehead, who was.a¡partner of ,-the late firm of Conner, Gridley Sf Co,,.is the receiver of the partnership, which is in liquidation,.under an appointment of the late court of the first district, and -the.opposition is 'filed by him,in that-capacity. Conner, had been .receiver before him, and the fact sought to-be proved is, the payment of the note by JStafford to him; and a litigation arose between the.new receiver, Whitehead, ¡and Conner, concerning the sums with which -Conner was. chargeable as receiver, -he having received certain amounts in that capacity from the debtors of the partnership. Certain proceedings and entries on.the minutes, sthe judgment of -the District Court, and ¡the opinion and.-decree.of the Supreme Court on the appeal, which related.to this litigation in which Conner was-sought to be charged with this.note as having received it from Stafford's estate, -were offered in evidence omthe trial of .this cause iu,the .court below:, and were not received by .the court. There was judgment sustaining -.the opposition of Whitehead, receiver, by which he was recognised as,a creditor of the estate of Stafford for the amount of -the note, and the administratrix has appealed.
The first ground on which the evidence offered was objected to-was,-that the -record of the proceedings.of the District Court was not,a complete record of a suit, but was an extract from the record of the suit ,of Gridley & Whitehead, and of James B. Conner. 'This ,is true it was -not. But the proceedings in ¡relation to this note' appertained to his ¡responsibility as receiver only, were cumulated with those,of that suit, and .had ,no,connection -withthe rest of the .matters oí contest which it .embraced. 'The controversy concerning that •note was conducted under the title of G. & W. v. J. B. C., which was one of the most contested .and .involved suits .that -.we have ever wit nessetl, and the-expense of the whole record would be too onefoub" on a party to require him-to produce it, unless therewasn necessity for it; and there appears to be none in this case. The objection, therefore, that- the copy offered was not of a- complete record of the principal- suit, and did not show the whole evidence and proceedings had in said case, is not well taken.
In mortuary and insolvent proceedings, which are frequently- voluminous,-in1 which all incidental contests are cumulated, the production of the entire record has never, to-our knowledge,- been- required in practice, and we know of no reason which-requires their production.- Greenleaf,in-his treatise"on evidence, states the rule as we understand it, which is the reverse of that Which was acted on in the court below. See that Work, vol. 1, §';512-i-
The second objection was-of the same character as' the'first-'; it was, that the record of the decree of the Shpreme Court Was incomplete, and:between parties different from those in the present suit. The'decree was made in the original suit of G & W. v. J. B. C., under that title, name, and number; but under it', the litigation concerning the note between Whitehead, the receiver, and" Conner, was conducted.
We think the court erred in rejecting the evidence on the objections made;- and that the documents D'and E, offered by the administratrix, ought to have' been received by the court.- As to their effect- in proving- the fact of the payment of the note, or as to the copy of the proceedings containing all thatre-l&ted to the litigatiop relative to this note,-we are not called upon to give any' opinion, confining ourselves to the objections stated in-the bill oi exceptions.
The judgment appealed from is therefore reversed; and the cause rtemand-ed for further proceedings according to law-'; the appellees- paying costs.