Case Name: BOWLUS et al. v. WHATLEY et al. In re WHATLEY et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1911-10-30
Citations: 129 La. 509
Docket Number: No. 19,039
Parties: BOWLUS et al. v. WHATLEY et al. In re WHATLEY et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 129
Pages: 509–513

Head Matter:
(56 South. 423.)
No. 19,039.
BOWLUS et al. v. WHATLEY et al. In re WHATLEY et al.
(Oct. 30, 1911.)
(Syllabus by the Court.)
On Motion to Dismiss.
1. Certiorari (§ 42*) — Dismissal—Grounds —Defects in Record.
When counsel for applicant for a writ of review makes affidavit that he instructed the clerk of the Court of Appeal to insert in the record the minute entry showing that a rehearing had been denied, and when such minute entry is filed with the affidavit, the application will not be dismissed, on the ground that the record does not show that a rehearing had been refused in the Court of Appeal.
[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Certiorari, Dec. Dig. § 42.*]
On the Merits.
2. Deeds (§§ 35, 84*) — Donations—Form of Act — Record.
The act evidencing a remunerative donation need not recite the value of the thing given or of the services intended to be compensated; and remunerative donations, not being real donations, and not being subject to the rules applicable to donations inter vivos, need not be recorded in a separate book, but should be recorded, if conveying real estate, in a conveyance book of the parish in which the property conveyed is situated.
[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Deeds, Cent. Dig. §§ 58, 222-224; Dec. Dig. §§ 35, 84.*]
Action by George A. Bowlus and others against William J. Whatley and others. Judgment for defendants was reversed by the Court of Appeal, and, an application for rehearing having been denied, defendants Whatley and others applied for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
See, also, 128 La. 500, 54 South. 972.
Blackmun & Overton and Robert P. Blunter & Sons, for applicants. White, Thornton &, Holloman, for respondents.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
SOMMEERVILLE, J.
Motion has been made to dismiss this application for a writ of review, on tne ground that the record fails to show that rehearing had been asked for in the Court of Appeal, and had been refused, In answer to this motion, counsel for applicant files affidavit to the effect that he instructed the clerk of the Court of Appeal to insert in the record a certified copy of an extract from the minutes, showing that a rehearing had been refused. To the answer to the motion to dismiss is annexed a certified extract from the minutes, reciting that the application for a rehearing had been denied. Under the circumstances, we think that there has been a sufficient compliance with rule 12 (47 South. vii) of this court, and the motion to dismiss is therefore denied.