Court Opinion

ID: 9694013
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:18:36.546129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:54.375013
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing
McCALEB, Justice.
In an application for a rehearing, in which no complaint was made relative to *842our holding that plaintiff’s injuries arose out and in the course of his employment, the defendant contended that we should not have passed upon the merits of the case because we had informed its 'Counsel at the time of the original argument that only the exception of no cause of action would •be considered. Recalling that such an assurance had been given, this rehearing was granted for the limited purpose of hearing argument on that phase of the case.
Besides other complaints, counsel for defendant initially maintain on this rehearing that the Court was without authority to grant judgment on the merits forasmuch as they were not considered by the district court.
This contention finds support in an unbroken line of jurisprudence. The case has reached here on a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal issued under authority of Section 11 of Article 7 of the Constitution. Thus, this court was invested “ * * * with the same power and authority in the case as if it had been carried directly by appeal * * * ” here. Under its appellate jurisdiction, the court exercises only the power of review, that is, a consideration of the rulings of the trial judge of which complaint is made.
Although the case was fully tried in the district court, the judge did not pass on the evidence, being of the opinion that-the defendant’s exception of no cause of action, which had been previously referred to the merits, was well founded in law. Plaintiff’s appeal to the Court of Appeal, which subsequently reached here, was prosecuted from this ruling of the trial court. Consequently, the evidence taken on the merits was not even required to be incorporated in the transcript _ for a proper disposition of the case, as it is established that “This Court can not take cognizance of facts upon which the court below has not acted and render a decision on those facts. Code of Practice, Article 895”. City of Gretna v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, 206 La. 715, 20 So.2d 1. See also Conery v. New Orleans Waterworks Co., 39 La. Ann. 770, 2 So. 555; Saint v. Martel, 122 La. 93, 47 So. 413; Parks v. Hughes, 145 La. 221, 82 So. 202 and Haddad v. Commercial Motor Truck Co., 146 La. 897, 84 So. 197, 9 A.L.R. 1380.
The last cited case is identical with this one in that, there, after a trial on the merits of a compensation case, judgment was rendered sustaining an exception of no cause of action. On appeal here,1 the judgment was reversed and the exception overruled but the case was remanded to the lower .court for decision on the merits as they had not been previously adjudged.
*844It is therefore ordered that our original opinion and decree, insofar as it awards plaintiff compensation, be and it is set aside and the case is remanded to the district court far decision, on its merits, reserving to both parties the . right to file such additional pleadings and evidence as may be relevant to a final disposition of the cause. The costs of the Court of Appeal and of this Court are to be paid by defendant.

. The case was decided in 1920. Prior to the Constitution pf 1921, the Courts of Appeal did not have exclusive appellate jurisdiction of suits for compensation un- " der the Employers Liability Act.