Case Name: STATE ex rel. BUSH v. TRAHAN
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1909-11-02
Citations: 125 La. 312
Docket Number: No. 17,918
Parties: STATE ex rel. BUSH v. TRAHAN.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 125
Pages: 311–321

Head Matter:
(51 South. 216.)
No. 17,918.
STATE ex rel. BUSH v. TRAHAN.
(Nov. 2, 1909.
On the Merits, Jan. 17, 1910.)
(Syllabus by the Court.)
On Motion to Dismiss.
1. Points Urged for Dismissal.
The grounds of the motion to dismiss are that the plaintiff appealed before the judgment was signed; that the appeal was taken out of term time.
2. Appeal and Error (§ 337*) — Transfer of Cause — Judgment Signed After Motion for Appeal.
As to the first ground the court holds: Appeal timely perfected, although the judgment was signed the day after the motion for appeal.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 1877, 1878; Dec. Dig. § 337.*]
3. Appeal and Error (§ 337*) — Transfer of Cause — Judgment Signed After Motion for Appeal.
When the appeal was perfected the judgment had been signed; different from appeals dismissed or cases remanded when there is no judgment signed before the court; as there was judgment signed, it suffices to maintain the appeal.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. ■§§ 1877, 1878; Dec. Dig. § 337.*]
4. Habeas Corpus (§ 113*) — Appeal in Vacation.
As to the second ground:
Appeal granted in open court. The court that rendered judgment had jurisdiction while in session to render judgment; it had jurisdiction to grant an appeal immediately after the judgment was rendered and while the court was in session.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Habeas Corpus, Cent. Dig. § 108; Dec. Dig. § 113.*]
On the Merits.
5. Divorce (§ 303*) — Custody of Children —Decree Subject to Modification.
The right of one or other of the spouses to have the care and custody of the children given by judgment of court in granting a separation from bed and board or a divorce is not an irrevocable decree. It is subject to modification by changing conditions. What may have been right and proper yesterday may become all wrong by situations existing to day._ What action should be taken in the premises is left greatly to the discretion of the trial judge under all the circumstances shown to have existed when called upon to act in that matter. Among the most important circumstances _ to be considered are the welfare and happiness of the child.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Divorce, Cent. Dig. §§ 703-795; Dec. Dig. § 303.*]
6. Habeas Corpus (§ 99*) — Custody op Children — Right op Father.
Under the evidence in this case the father was held properly not to have the right to take the care and custody of the child from its mother.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Habeas .Corpus, Cent. Dig. | 84; Dec. Dig. § 99;* Parent and Child, Cent. Dig. §§ 4r-32.j
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; Fred. D. King, Acting Judge.
Plabeas corpus by the State, on the relation of Robert N. Bush, against Paula Trahan, widow of Charles Adolph. Judgment for respondent, and relator appeals.
Affirmed.
Robert H. Marr, for appellant. Wood-ville & Woodville, for appellee.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
BREAUX, C. J.
Plaintiff sued for the custody of the minor child, Norma, who was with defendant, her mother.
The defendant claimed the custody.
Judgment was rendered and signed September 14, 1909, in favor of defendant, and dismissing the suit.
The motion of appellant for an appeal was filed on the 13th of September, 1909. The motion, it follows, preceded the signing of the judgment by one day.
The judgment was rendered on the 8th of September, but was not signed before the 14th following. The bond of appeal was filed on the 22d following, for an amount corresponding with that fixed in the order.
The appellee's grounds for dismissing the appeal are:
First. The prematurity of the motion for the appeal and of the order of appeal thereon.
Second. The appeal was taken by motion; it should have been taken by petition and citation.
The appellee moved to dismiss the appeal on the first ground on the 6th of October, and filed a second motion to dismiss the appeal on the second ground on the 14th day of October, 1909.
/
Recurring to the first proposition that the judgment was signed the, day after the motion of appeal had been filed: This first ground has never been held as absolutely defeating the right of appeal.
Appellate courts have frequently remanded the case for the required signature to make the judgment effective and final and to enable, the appellant thereafter to perfect the appeal.
But here the judgment is signed, and there is no necessity of remanding the case for it to be signed. It would'serve no purpose to remand the case only in order to have a motion of appeal entered after the date of the judgment.
In a similar case this court held that the judgment was properly before the court, and the court saw no reason to dismiss the appeal. McGregor v. Barker, 12 La. Ann. 289.
In another case it was held that the appeal should not be dismissed on the ground that the appeal had been taken prematurely.
There are similar expressions in State v. Balize, 38 La. Ann. 543.
The court quotes the following approvingly:
"We are of opinion that this motion ought not to prevail. It is usual in the country to apply for an appeal before the judgment is signed. The appeal is considered as being taken nunc pro tunc" — citing- Green v. Huey, 23' La. Ann. 705, Vicksburg, S. & T. R. Co. v. Hamilton, 15 La. Ann. 521, and Mouton v. Broussard, 25 La. Ann. 497, in support of the text.
The custom in the country may be considered in deciding whether an appellant should be permitted to prosecute an appeal.
An appeal should be dismissed only when it is evident that there is fatal oversight or negligence.
There are other cases bearing upon the subject and presenting some analogy, although possibly not of themselves here controlling. Jordan v. Saunders, 13 La. Ann. 417; Klotz v. Maeready and Burke, 35 La. Ann. 596.
In the former of these two cases the court held that:
"An appeal must be tested by the state of facts existing at the time the transcript is filed."
This finds support in Klotz v. Maeready, 35 La. Ann. 590, and Percy v. Millaudos, 6 La. 586.
There is no necessity of going so far as was decided in these two eases to maintain the appeal in the present case. All was done that was required in the present case, except that the judgment was signed at a date later than the motion for the appeal; that is, as before stated, the day afterward.
If a judgment be not signed at all, and an appeal be taken, it gives rise to a different question from the present.
Learned counsel for appellees refers to these decisions applying when -the judgment is not signed at any time, and specially cites Jacob v. Preston, 31 La. Ann. 515, a case in which it does not appear that any judgment at all had been signed.
This is entirely different from the present ca'se, in which we have stated there is a signed judgment.
The next proposition is that the term of the civil district court for the parish of Orleans begins in October and ends in June. During the session, appeal may be taken by motion, but that thereafter the appeal must be taken by petition and citation.
There is no merit in the contention.
The court by which the judgment was. rendered contradictorily with the parties had authority to grant the motion for an appeal.
The court was in open session, and had jurisdiction (Act No. 4 of 1896) for issuing any and all writs during the summer or vacation months.
The action was by writ of habeas corpus to obtain the custody of a child.
See interpretation given in State ex rel. City of New Orleans v. Judge, 21 La. Ann. 733, to a similar act of a prior date, viz., Act No. 16 of 1869.
The motion to dismiss is overruled.