Bouchillon v. De Bautte

2 Citing cases

  1. Bouchillon v. De Bautte

    228 So. 2d 692 (La. Ct. App. 1969)   Cited 4 times

    DOMENGEAUX, Judge. We first considered the present motion to remand for a new trial in the reported case of Grosch v. De Bautte, 203 So.2d 906, wherein we did not deem it appropriate to remand for a trial de novo at that time, but rather we held said motion in abeyance pending our remand to the lower court for the limited purpose of receiving evidence to ascertain what probability there was of obtaining the missing transcript of the testimony taken at the trial, and the cause of the tardy filing of the record of appeal, and all circumstances attendant thereto, all of which is set out in our aforementioned ruling. Pursuant to our mandate, the lower court heard testimony in connection therewith on March 1, 1968 and the record shows that the completed testimony was filed March 18, 1968 in the lower court, however same was not returned to this court until March 6, 1969. During the interim, defendants-appellees filed a motion to dismiss this appeal, alleging primarily that the appellants had been dilatory in lodging the original record in this court, asserting said parties to be guilty of laches.

  2. Bouchillon v. DeBautte

    222 So. 2d 548 (La. Ct. App. 1969)   Cited 1 times

    Plaintiffs then requested this Court to remand the matter for a trial de novo. Defendants opposed this motion on the ground that an undue hardship would be imposed on them were they required to defend the same suit again. In an opinion rendered October 16, 1967, 203 So.2d 906, we stated consideration of the motion for a new trial would be held in abeyance until it was ascertained whether the missing transcript could be supplied. We instructed the litigants to adduce evidence concerning Plaintiffs' responsibility, if any, for the delay in transcribing the testimony, as well as the probability of supplying the missing transcript.