Case Name: EUREKA HOMESTEAD SOC. v. CLARK. In re EUREKA HOMESTEAD SOC.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1919-11-03
Citations: 145 La. 917
Docket Number: No. 23586
Parties: EUREKA HOMESTEAD SOC. v. CLARK. In re EUREKA HOMESTEAD SOC.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 145
Pages: 917–923

Head Matter:
(83 South. 190)
No. 23586.
EUREKA HOMESTEAD SOC. v. CLARK. In re EUREKA HOMESTEAD SOC.
(Nov. 3, 1919.)
(Syllabus ly Editorial Staff.)
1. Certiorari <&wkey;>62 — Dismissal oe writ; FAILURE TO ' FILE BRIEF WITHIN TWENTY DAYS.
Writs of certiorari and review will not be rescinded merely because relator failed to file a brief within 20 days, there being no law nor rule of court imposing that penalty for a failure to file a brief in support of such an application under Const, art. 101.
2. Judgment <&wkey; 133 —Default; necessity OF AFFIDAVIT THAT DEFENDANT WAS NOT IN MILITARY SERVICE.
Act Cong. March 8, 1918, § 200 (U. S. Comp. St. § 307814bb), relating to the entry of judgment against persons in military and naval service, does not make absolutely null a judgment, rendered against one not in military service, without an affidavit showing that defendant was not then in military service.
Certiorari to Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans..
Action by Eureka Homestead Society against William L. Clark, Jr. Judgment by default was entered against defendant. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the judgment was annulled, the case remanded, and plaintiff applies for certiorari or writ of review.
Judgment of the Court of Appeal annulled and that of trial court affirmed.
McCloskey & Benedict and Henry B. Curtis, all of New Orleans, for applicant.
Charles J. Rivet and Delvaille H. Théard, both of New Orleans, for respondent.

Opinion:
On Motion to Rescind Writ.
O'NIELL, J.
Counsel for defendant, Clark, has filed a motion to have the writs of certiorari and review rescinded, because the plaintiff, relator herein, did not file a brief within the 20 days allowed. There is no law nor rule of court imposing that penalty for a failure to file a brief in support of an application for a writ of review, under article 101 of the Constitution. The delay of 20 days allowed for the filing of briefs, which we invariably grant when we issue a writ of review to the Court of Appeal, is a matter of grace, not a mandate. The only unfortunate consequence that may result from an attorney's negligence in that respect is that his client and we are thereby deprived of the benefit of the brief, in our effort to decide the case right.
The motion to have the writs rescinded is therefore overruled.