Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

191 La. 362

185 So 284

Hunt v. Hunt

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided November 28, 1938

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1938-11-28

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The order of appeal having been obtained in chambers, the appellees are entitled to citation. Plaintiffs not having asked in the court below that the appellees be cited to answer the appeal, the failure to cite them is not attributable to the clerk and sheriff, but to the appellants themselves. Therefore the appeal is not saved by section 36 of the Revised Statutes, but must be dismissed, for when, by the appellant’s fault, the appellees have not been cited, a motion to dismiss the appeal must prevail.” Hunt v. Hunt et al., 191 La. 362, 363 , 185 So. 284 .”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Howard v. Rowan

Relies on Ducre v. Succession of Ducre · McCutchen v. Hudson · State v. Salmen Brick & Lumber Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1938-11-28

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently September 1973

4 state decisions

2019381940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

FOURNET, Justice.

¶1 This case is before us on a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that there was no service of the petition and citation of appeal upon appellee or her counsel.

¶2*363 The order of appeal was applied for by the petitioners in chambers, after adjournment of court, and it does not appear that they asked for or obtained an order directing the service of citation of the appeal upon the appellee, nor does the record show that any citation of appeal has been issued and served either on her or her counsel.

¶3 The identical issue here raised has been presented to this court in innumerable cases and was disposed of in the case of Ducre v. Succession of Ducre, 167 La. 133, 118 So. 864, as follows:

“The order of appeal having been obtained in chambers, the appellees are entitled to citation. Plaintiffs not having asked in the court below that the appellees be cited to answer the appeal, the failure to cite them is not attributable to the clerk and sheriff, but to the appellants themselves. Therefore the appeal is not saved by section 36 of the Revised Statutes, but must be dismissed, for when, by the appellant’s fault, the appellees have not been cited, a motion to dismiss the appeal must prevail.” Citing as authority Schmitt v. Drouet & Rabasse, 42 La.Ann. 716, 7 So. 746; McCutchen v. Hudson, 132 La. 177, 61 So. 157; Smith v. O'Reilly Elevator Company, Ltd., 134 La. 635, 64 So. 494; Succession of Morris, 136 La. 69, 66 So. 542; King v. First Methodist Church, 137 La. 879, 69 So. 593; State v. Salmen Brick & Lumber Company, 149 La. 968, 90 So. 273; Investors’ Mortgage Company v. Aleman, 165 La. 104, 115 So. 383. See, also, Act 53 of 1839; sec. 11 of Act 45 of the Extra Session of 1870, and Article 898 of the Code of Practice.

¶4 For the reasons assigned it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the appeal is dismissed at the cost of appellants.

/191/la/362 · .json · Public domain