McCann v. Todd
1942 La. LEXIS 1313, 10 So. 2d 769, 201 La. 953 (1942)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A motion for appeal is considered granted 'in open court' when the judge signs the order in their adjoining office while the court is in regular session, and the action is properly recorded in the official court minutes.
Facts:
- A dispute arose between John J. Finnom and Cameron C. McCann on one side, and Robert B. Todd on the other, concerning a demand for an accounting.
- The dispute also involved the legal ownership of certain debenture notes.
- Todd asserted a reconventional demand (a counterclaim) against both Finnom and McCann related to the dispute.
- Prior to the judgment, a preliminary injunction was issued against Todd.
- The disputed notes were seized under a writ of sequestration pending the outcome of the litigation.
Procedural Posture:
- John J. Finnom and Cameron C. McCann sued Robert B. Todd in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans (trial court).
- The trial court rendered a single, multi-part judgment in favor of Finnom and McCann on November 3, 1941, which was formally signed on November 12, 1941.
- On November 19, 1941, Todd's counsel presented a motion for appeal to the judge in the judge's office, which adjoined the courtroom, while the court was in session.
- The judge granted the order of appeal, and the action was recorded in the court's official minutes for that day.
- Todd, as appellant, furnished a surety bond for the appeal to the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
- Finnom and McCann, as appellees, filed a motion in the Supreme Court of Louisiana to dismiss the appeal on procedural grounds.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a judge's signing of an order of appeal in his office adjoining the courtroom, while the court is in regular session and the action is recorded in the minutes, satisfy the legal requirement that such orders be granted 'in open court'?
Opinions:
Majority - Higgins, Justice
Yes, signing an order of appeal in an adjoining office while the court is in session satisfies the 'in open court' requirement. Appeals are favored in law and will not be dismissed upon mere technicalities. The court presumes that actions recorded in the minutes during a court session occurred in open court. The judge's office is functionally part of the court, and using it for convenience to expedite official business does not invalidate an order, especially when the court is officially in session and the action is formally entered into the court's minutes. The trial judge's intent was clearly to act in his official capacity, not privately in chambers, as evidenced by his directing the motion and order to be spread upon the minutes. This distinguishes the case from precedents where appeals were granted when the court was not in session at all. Furthermore, the single appeal was proper because the trial court rendered one comprehensive judgment resolving multiple issues, not seven separate judgments.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a pragmatic and flexible interpretation of the 'in open court' requirement, prioritizing substance over rigid formality. It recognizes modern judicial practices where judges may conduct official business in their offices for efficiency, so long as the court is officially in session. The ruling strengthens the principle that the right to appeal is favored and should not be defeated by technical arguments regarding the judge's physical location within the courthouse. This precedent signals that as long as an official act is properly documented in the court record during an active court session, it is presumptively valid.
