Case Name: Alphonse Walz vs. The New Orleans, Lake & Spanish Fort Railroad Company
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1883-05
Citations: 35 La. Ann. 628
Docket Number: No. 7968
Parties: Alphonse Walz vs. The New Orleans, Lake & Spanish Fort Railroad Company.
Judges: Fenner, J., concurs on different grounds.
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 35
Pages: 628–628

Head Matter:
No. 7968.
Alphonse Walz vs. The New Orleans, Lake & Spanish Fort Railroad Company.
An order dismissing an appeal, by consent of opposite counsel, will not be disturbed by this Court on tlie complaint of one of the litigante that his attorney had no authority to give such consent, where there is presented an issue of facts, by affidavits and counter affi, davits, requiring the exercise of an original jurisdiction.
APPEAL from the Sixth District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Biglvtor, J.
Albert Voorhies and June. Meunier for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Chas. S. Bice for Defendant and Appellee.

Opinion:
On Motion to Reinstate Case.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Bermüdez, C. J.
The order which was made, discontinuing the appeal in this case, was rendered on the motion of counsel for defendant, consented to by counsel for the plaintiff.
The plaintiff himself now comes in this Court and asks, by rule, the rescission of the order, on the ground that the consent given by the counsel representing him was unauthorized.
Affidavits and counter affidavits are filed on behalf of each party to the rule.
With such contradictory proof this Court has nothing to do. The order was made with the consent of one who, at the time, represented the plaintiff, and had authority to give such consent in a.judicial proceeding.
The plaintiff had not notified this Court, prior to the date of the consent, that the attorney had ceased to represent him. Until a litigant so does, courts of justice are fully justified to consider and treat the attorney as his legal representative.
The relief of the complaining client is surely notin this Court when facts are disputed. 32 An. 663; 2 An. 430.
We have no application to refer before us.
Motion to rescind dismissed.
Rehearing refused.
Fenner, J., concurs on different grounds.