Case Name: Edgar Mouton v. Zenon Broussard
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1873-06
Citations: 25 La. Ann. 497
Docket Number: No. 766
Parties: Edgar Mouton v. Zenon Broussard.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 25
Pages: 497–499

Head Matter:
No. 766.
Edgar Mouton v. Zenon Broussard.
Where, on the verdict of the jury being rendered, the defendant moved for a new trial, which was refused, and an appeal was then asked for and • granted, and the appeal bond filed, áll prior to the date of the judgment as entered on the minutes of the court, in consequenoe of -whieh amotion was made to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it was premature, having been applied for and granted before the judgment was rendered, and that the bond is defective and without force, because it was given before the judgment was rendered;
Held — That the judge a quo having entertained the motion for a new trial and refused to grant it, the defendant may well have considered that the verdict of the jury was adopted as the judgment of the court as of that date. A new trial having been refused, •there remained nothing further for the court to do but render a judgment pursuant thereto, and under the mode of procedure in the country, the appeal may be considered as taken nunc pro tunc.
The granting of the appeal at the time was an irregularity that does not authorize the dismissal of it.
Where the plaintiff had been allowed to explain by parol the circumstances attending the seizure of which he complains, it was competent for the defendant to produce rebutting evidence in relation to the facts -connected with the seizure, which did not tend to contradict, vary, or alter his written return on the order.
APPEAL from the Sixteenth Judicial District Court, parish of Lafayette. Mouton, 3. Jury trial.
Felix Yoorhies, Ed. Eugene Mouton, E. Simon, and J. E. Mouton, for plaintiff and appellee. DeBlcmc & Four-net, for defendant and appellant.

Opinion:
Taliaferro, J.
A motion is made to dismiss this appeal on the grounds that the appeal is premature, having been applied for and granted beiore the judgment was rendered, and that the bond is defective and without force because it was given before the judgment was rendered.
The case was tried before a jury, and when the verdict was rendered the defendant moved for a new trial which was refused. An appeal was then asked for and granted, and the appeal bond filed— all prior to the date of the judgment as entered on the ininutes of the court.
The judge having entertained the motion for a new trial and refused to grant it, the defendant may well have considered that the verdict of the jury was adopted as the judgment of the court as of that date. A new trial having been denied, there remained nothing further for the court to do but to render a judgment pursuant thereto, and under the mode of procedure in the country, the appeal may be considered as taken nunc pro tunc. 12 An. 289, 596; 15 An. 521; 23 An. 704. The granting of the appeal at the time was an irregularity that does not authorize the dismissal of it.
. The motion is overruled.
The plaintiff alleges that the defendant caused him damages to the amount of fifteen hundred dollars by illegally seizing, under execution