Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 Mart. 314

Read v. Bailey

Superior Court of Louisiana

Decided July 1, 1812

Superior Court of Louisiana · decided 1812-07-01

Upon the trial of this cause, the court divided in opinion, ante 77, and no judgment was rendered; and now the counsel for the plaintiff moved to discontinue. The division of the court in this case, amounts, in effect, to a judgment against the plaintiff. He has not gained, neither can he gain, any thing from the trial.

Decided 1812-07-01

By the Court.

¶1In France, there are courts, in which the president has a preponderating voice, in case of an equal division of the members. In others, recourse is had to another court. 1 Ferriere, verbo Departager.

¶2In England, in the King's Bench, the Common Pleas, the Exchequer, or in the Exchequer Chamber, where all the justices are assembled, if the justices are equally divided, no judgment can be given; and so it is in the court of parliament. 12 Co. Procter's case, 118.

¶3In this state, the same rule has always prevailed. Moreau vs. Duncan, 1 Martin, 99, Orl. Nav. Co. vs. City of N. O. Id. 269, ante, same case, 10. and there is a strong reason for it, the court being composed of an uneven number of judges.

¶4The plaintiff is as much entitled to a discontinuance in this case, as in that of Durnford vs. Johnson, ante 306.

¶5Discontinuance granted.

/2/mart-la/314 · .json · Public domain