Brown Shoe Company v. Hill

• Decision Date: 17 April 1899
• Docket Number: 13,137
• Citation: 51 La.Ann. 920,25 So. 634
• Parties: THE BROWN SHOE COMPANY v. J. N. HILL & BRO., ET AL
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

25 So. 634

51 La.Ann. 920

THE BROWN SHOE COMPANY v. J. N. HILL & BRO., ET AL

No. 13,137

Supreme Court of Louisiana

April 17, 1899

Submitted April 3, 1899

IN RE The Brown Shoe Company Applying for Certiorari or Writ of Review to the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, State of Louisiana.

C. S Wyly, for Relators.

OPINION

BLANCHARD J.

This is not a case in which the writ of review should be granted. We took occasion in the case of J. O Toole vs. C. H. Minge, 50th La.Ann. 748, to lay down the rule which would govern the action of the court in respect to applications for the writ. It was there said, speaking of Art. 101 of the Constitution of 1898: "It was not intended by a resort to the power here granted to make of the Supreme Court a sort of superior court of appeals over the Circuit Courts, to take jurisdiction of, and hear and determine any and all cases that may have been decided by the latter courts in the exercise of their legitimate constitutional jurisdiction. In other words, it was not intended that the Circuit Courts of Appeal should be made merely a stopping place for causes between one hundred dollars and two thousand dollars on their way from the District Courts to the Supreme Court.

"It was, rather, intended that the power thus lodged in the Supreme Court should be exercised only in special or extreme cases, whose peculiar circumstances as to the facts or the law governing the same justify, in the opinion of this court, a resort to it.

"For example, when the Court of Appeals refuses to be guided, in a clear case, by the well-established jurisprudence as defined and laid down by this court, a case would be presented warranting this court in sending down its writ to bring up such cause for review and determination. This might be necessary to enforce uniformity of jurisprudence throughout the State in the courts thereof.

"Other cases for other reasons may arise justifying a resort to the writ -- care being always taken against its abuse, to the impairment of the dignity and power and usefulness of the Courts of Appeal, and protracting litigation and deferring the final enforcement of just rights."

We have, as far as possible, in subsequent cases, adhered to the ruling in the Toole case, frequently citing the same as a controlling authority in respect to applications for the writ of review. We again affirm it as a correct interpretation of the true meaning and intention of Art. 101 of the Constitution.

In saying this we are not unmindful of Act 191 of the Acts of 1898, entitled "An Act relative to Courts of Appeal and to carry out the provisions of Art. 101 of the Constitution of this State."

Sec. 2 of that act, in declaring that the party cast in the Court of Appeals, or other person in interest who may feel aggrieved by the judgment rendered, shall, in any case, have the right to bring the cause before this court for its review and determination, goes beyond the constitutional intendment, and, so far as it does, is not to be followed.

The case of Toole vs. Minge, and other cases subsequent thereto defining the true meaning of the Article of the Constitution, were...