Case Name: John Calder & Co. and D. R. Calder vs. Their Creditors
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1895
Citations: 47 La. Ann. 346
Docket Number: No. 11,548
Parties: John Calder & Co. and D. R. Calder vs. Their Creditors.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 47
Pages: 346–354

Head Matter:
No. 11,548.
John Calder & Co. and D. R. Calder vs. Their Creditors.
Motion to Dismiss tiie Appeal.
The grounds are:
Defectiveness and insufficiency of the clerk’s certificate.
Diminution of the record of appeal.
CLERK’S CERTIFICATE.
An agreement had been made to bring up books in the original.
The clerk’s certificate regarding these books was controlled by the agreement.
DIMINUTION OF RECORD.
Original documents not stamped were brought up by the clerk of a court in answer to the writ of certiorari issued to him to complete the record. They were brought up by him in the original and not stamped.
As it occasions no delay and the law may be complied with (the case has not been called), time is allowed to affix needful stamps to the instruments of evidence. Motion to dismiss not allowed.
On the Merits.
¿Entries in partnership books bind the partners, and on the issue whether immovable property has been acquired for the partnership, such entries are admissible. 2 Lindsley on Partnership, 537; Armistead and another vs. Spring, X Rob. 567.
Whether the immovable is bought in the partnership name, or for it by one of the partners, they become joint owners, as the partnership can not own immovable property. C. C., Arts. 2825, 2836; 1 N. S. 295; 3 La. 496; 10 La. 420; 3 Rob. 256; 1 An. 434; 5 An. 532.
Hence, being joint owners, one partner cannot dispose of the shares of his co-partner in such immovable; all must concur to make title, and hence a cession by one partner does not pass to the syndic the shares of his copartner in immovable property. Ibid.; 1 An. 484; 4 An. 56; 9 Rob. 372.
But if the immovable is acquired for the partnership, each partner has the right in the appropriate proceeding to insist the property shall be applied to pay partnership debts, and, in the event of a cession by one of the partners, that right •passes to the syndic. Story on Partnership, Secs. 97, 98,360, 361; Civil Code, Art. .2823. Case vs. Beauregard, 99 U. S. 128.
APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. King, Jt
Horace E. Upton and Henry L. Lazarus for Syndics, Appellees.
Frank L. Richardson and Suthon <& Suthon for Peter Berger eí ais., Defendants in Rule, Appellants.

Opinion:
ON Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Breaux, J.
From a judgment dismissing their demand, Peter Berger, Executor, et al. and Mrs. Emily P. Shields and her husband, William'Shields, have taken a devolutive appeal.
The syndics of John Oalder & Oo. and D. R. Oalder individually, •defendants and appellees, have moved to dismiss the appeal on the ¡grounds:
That the clerk's certificate, made according to instructions of appellant, is defective and insufficient.
That material and important evidence for the defendant was not •copied in the transcript.
That the ledgers 6 and 4 of John Oalder & Co. have not been filed in original in this court.
After the motion to dismiss had been filed the appellant applied for a writ of certiorari to the clerk of the court to certify up the whole record in the case.
The clerk tendered his answer, alleging that he has complied with •the order.
In the event of an appeal an agreement was entered of record in the court a qua that the ledgers were to be brought up in the original.
The certificate required was properly made to yield to the agreement, for the clerk could not certify the books brought up in the original.
The appellants have, through counsel under oath, stated the •causes that prevented them from producing and lodging the books in the Appellate Court.
The books and documents are at this time before the court under a certiorari from this court.
" When by subsequent order of court imperfections in a transcript .are cured, a pending motion to dismiss will be overruled as a matter of course." Huyghe vs. Brinkman, 38 An. 837; Hughes vs. Murdock, 45 An. 935.
With reference to the documents not copied in the transcript, •being schedules or lists of property.
The defendants (although 'they were brought up by the clerk of •court as part of the record in answer to the writ of certiorari') urged that ib was proper on the part of the clerk not to include them in the transcript. They allege that while offered, the introduction, filing and stamping is lacking. The record discloses that the following question was propounded:
" Will you examine this paper numbered 35,056, filed February 15, 1892, in case entitled John Calder & Co. and David R. Calder vs. Their Creditors, and state what this purports to be?"
To this question appellants objected. The court overruled the objection and admitted the document, to which ruling a bill of exception was reserved. Following this rule counsel for appellees offered "the schedule in the respite proceedings identified by the witness, and the schedule in the insolvency proceedings, which he has just identified, said documents being filed in suits Nos. 32,894 and 35,056.
The same objection was made as was offered to the admissibility of the documents just previously offered.
The ruling was the same and a bill was reserved.
The documents, the clerk's statement of facts shows, were introduced and admitted in evidence.
They were as alleged not stamped.
. Though they, the appellees and defendants, should have had them stamped when they were offered; considering all the facts and circumstances in this case the court will permit the stamping at this time, as it will complete the record and as it does not occasion any delay in the hearing of the case on appeal.
The ease has not been submitted for decision. But the time within which appellees are authorized to stamp the documents is limited to three days from this date, otherwise they will not be considered as instruments of evidence before the court. W. S. Reddick vs. R. M. White, 46 An. 1198.
Appellees' motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.