History
  • No items yet
midpage
Fontenot v. Lee
160 So. 2d 26
| La. Ct. App. | 1964
|
Check Treatment
160 So. 2d 26 (1964)

Burke Lynn FONTENOT, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Walter LEE, Custodian of Voting Machines, Defendant-Appellee,
Charlemagne Aucoin, Intervenor-Appellant.

No. 1123.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

January 21, 1964.

Tate & Tate, by Paul Tate, Mamou, La., for defendants-appellees.

Tate & Tate, by Donald Tate, Mamou, for intervenor-appellant.

Preston N. Aucoin, Ville Platte, for plaintiff-appellee.

Dubuisson & Dubuisson, by William Brinkhaus, Opelousas, for plaintiff-appellee.

En Banc.

*27 PER CURIAM.

The record of this appeal fails to disclose a judgment signed in the case, although the Minutes reflect that judgment was rendered in open court. There is no Minute Entry to show that the judgment was read and signed in open court. There is, therefore, no final judgment from which an appeal can be taken, and, the Court must ex proprio motu dismiss the appeal in the absence of a signed judgment. LSA-C.C.P. Art. 1911; Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Ace Freight Lines, Inc., (La.App., 1 Cir., 1963), 155 So. 2d 107; Mayfair Sales, Inc. v. Sams, (La.App., 1 Cir., 1963), 154 So. 2d 616; Davis v. Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, (La.App., 1 Cir., 1962), 142 So. 2d 803; and Doucet v. Landry, (La.App., 3 Cir., 1962), 137 So. 2d 431.

For the reasons assigned, the appeal is dismissed without prejudice at the cost of intervenor-appellant.

Appeal dismissed.

Case Details

Case Name: Fontenot v. Lee
Court Name: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Date Published: Jan 21, 1964
Citation: 160 So. 2d 26
Docket Number: 1123
Court Abbreviation: La. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.