Court Opinion

ID: 9865994
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 00:01:22.689186+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:08:47.093004
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
This case is before us on rehearihg.. In our former opinion we set out the issues correctly. When it was first handed down there were some errors as to the disposition made of the case in the lower court. Ap-pellee complained bitterly of these errors, which we corrected in the original opinion. The errors were entirely immaterial to a correct decision of the issues before us.
Counsel for appellee in application for rehearing further complained of our applying to the facts of this case Act No. 95 of 1922., His complaint in that respect is well founded. We overlooked the fact that Act No. 95 of 1922, Section 8, was a local statute applying only to Caddo Parish. It is because of this error of ours that we granted a rehearing. It was, however, unnecessary for us to include in our former opinion a discussion of this act, for under Articles 394 and 552 of the Code of Practice, and Act No. 203 of 1898, plaintiff, is primarily bound for all costs until defendant is finally cast in judgment. Crespo v. Viola, 152 La. 1088, 95 So. 256.
The duties placed on the appellant in perfecting an appeal to this court are different from the duties required of an appellant by the Supreme Court. The principal requirements in this court are that the appellant take orders of appeal, file his bond timely, and deposit the cost of appeal with the proper court official. When he has done this, if it be shown that the record is incomplete through no fault of his, he cannot be penalized for it. If it is incomplete or not timely returned here through fault of appellant, his appeal will be dismissed. We do not feel called upon to inquire into the question of who was at fault in this case, since we clearly have no jurisdiction in the case. We therefore avail ourselves of the privileges of Act No. 19 of 1912, and now transfer the appeal in this case to the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
It therefore follows that the former judgment of this court is reinstated and made the final judgment.