Case Name: State ex rel. Fred. Duffel, District Attorney pro tem., et al. vs. Morris Marks
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1878-01
Citations: 30 La. Ann. 97
Docket Number: No. 6682
Parties: State ex rel. Fred. Duffel, District Attorney pro tem., et al. vs. Morris Marks.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 30
Pages: 97–113

Head Matter:
No. 6682.
State ex rel. Fred. Duffel, District Attorney pro tem., et al. vs. Morris Marks.
A party Is not eligible as District Judge who lias not practiced law in this State for two years, next preceding his election.
In legal contemplation, a party can not be said to have practiced law, even though, as a matter of fact, ho may have dono so, if he has not previously qualified to practice, by complying with the requirements prescribed by tho constitution.
Because one has acted as District Attorney, he can not be said, in a constitutional sense, to have “ practiced law.”
A mere resolution, passed by the Board of Administrators of the University of Louisiana, that the degree of bachelor of law shall be granted to a certain person, and directing the President of the University to confer said degree, and the usual diploma, followed by a refusal of the President to obey the direction, has not the character and authority of a diploma.
Tho degree of bachelor of law, conferred on a party by tho Board of Administrators of the University of Louisiana, will not authorize him to demand of this court a. license to practico law in this .State, unless the diploma is signed by the President of the University, and the Professors of tho Department in which the student has graduated.
APPEAL from the Fourth Judicial District Court, parish of Ascension. Maher, J., acting for Flagg, J.
J. C. Egan, Assistant Attorney General. Frederick Duffel, District Attorney pro tem., E. E. Pugh, E. P. Poché, H. F. Duffel, B. E Sims, B. P. Landry, and T. B. Winchester, for plaintiff and appellant.
J. D. Augustin, Gus. A. Breaux, St. M. Berault, Emile Legendre, Jno. If. Ilsley & Son, William B. Mils, J. L. Gaudet, John Gheevers, L. De Porter, Gervais Leche, for defendant.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
DeBlanc, J.
The transcript, in this case, is a duplicate of the transcript in case No. 6681, and the motion to dismiss the appeal, filed in this duplicate, is — with but a slight difference — the identical motion already passed upon by this court. That difference is simply this: the last day of the delay fixed by law for the return of such appeals, occurring on a Sunday, the district attorney pro tempore, apprehending the very objection raised by defendant, caused to be filed in this court, on tho ninth day after the judgment was signed, one of the transcripts herein mentioned; the other transcript was filed on the eleventh, and could not have been filed on the tenth day, which, as admitted, was a Sunday. That both were filed in time is no longer an open question.
C. P. 318, 575. 8 L. 223. 6 R. R. 20. 14 A. 105. 24 A. 333.
The motion to dismiss is overruled.