mere clerical error in Louisiana

2016Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 1915(B) provides that: (1) When a court renders a partial judgment or partial summary judgment or sustains an exception in part, as to one or more but less than all of the claims, demands, issues, or theories against a party, whether in an original demand, reconventional demand, cross-claim, third-party claim, or intervention, the judgment shall not constitute a final judgment unless it is designated as a final judgment by the court after an express determination that there is no just reason for delay. (2) In the absence of such a determination and des

1982In Villaume v. Villaume, 363 So.2d 448 (La.1978), a child custody judgment giving visitation rights at the end of every month was altered, by consent of the parties, to reflect the judge’s intent, expressed orally from the bench, to give visitation at the end of every other month.

1982In Goodwin v. Gulledge, 391 So.2d 883 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1980), it was held that an amendment of a judgment to show the correct docket number corrected a mere clerical error and related back to the time of filing the original judgment so that, in a situation very similar to this one, the delays for appeal had run and the appeal was dismissed.

1970This view is stated in Baptiste v. Southall, 157 La. 333 , 102 So. 420 (1924).

1970This view is stated in Baptiste v. Southall, 157 La. 333 , 102 So. 420 (1924).

1959This is not the situation of a clerical error (as in Brulatour v. Teche Sugar Co., 209 La. 717 , 25 So.2d 444; Nelson, Curtis & Nelson v. Bridge- *567 man, 152 La. 190 , 92 So. 855 ; Waller v. Colvin, 151 La. 765 , 92 So. 328 ) but the situation herein is more like the cases of Lattimer’s Heirs v. Gulf Refining Co., 146 La. 249 , 83 So. 543 (where it was contended that the description of 80 acres was omitted from the deed and should have been included) and Federal Land Bank of New Orleans v. Bankston, 196 La. 146 , 198 So. 886 (where the plaintiff sought to have the description in a mortgage r

1959This is not the situation of a clerical error (as in Brulatour v. Teche Sugar Co., 209 La. 717 , 25 So.2d 444; Nelson, Curtis & Nelson v. Bridge- *567 man, 152 La. 190 , 92 So. 855 ; Waller v. Colvin, 151 La. 765 , 92 So. 328 ) but the situation herein is more like the cases of Lattimer’s Heirs v. Gulf Refining Co., 146 La. 249 , 83 So. 543 (where it was contended that the description of 80 acres was omitted from the deed and should have been included) and Federal Land Bank of New Orleans v. Bankston, 196 La. 146 , 198 So. 886 (where the plaintiff sought to have the description in a mortgage r

1959This is not the situation of a clerical error (as in Brulatour v. Teche Sugar Co., 209 La. 717 , 25 So.2d 444; Nelson, Curtis & Nelson v. Bridge- *567 man, 152 La. 190 , 92 So. 855 ; Waller v. Colvin, 151 La. 765 , 92 So. 328 ) but the situation herein is more like the cases of Lattimer’s Heirs v. Gulf Refining Co., 146 La. 249 , 83 So. 543 (where it was contended that the description of 80 acres was omitted from the deed and should have been included) and Federal Land Bank of New Orleans v. Bankston, 196 La. 146 , 198 So. 886 (where the plaintiff sought to have the description in a mortgage r

1959This is not the situation of a clerical error (as in Brulatour v. Teche Sugar Co., 209 La. 717 , 25 So.2d 444; Nelson, Curtis & Nelson v. Bridge- *567 man, 152 La. 190 , 92 So. 855 ; Waller v. Colvin, 151 La. 765 , 92 So. 328 ) but the situation herein is more like the cases of Lattimer’s Heirs v. Gulf Refining Co., 146 La. 249 , 83 So. 543 (where it was contended that the description of 80 acres was omitted from the deed and should have been included) and Federal Land Bank of New Orleans v. Bankston, 196 La. 146 , 198 So. 886 (where the plaintiff sought to have the description in a mortgage r

1959This is not the situation of a clerical error (as in Brulatour v. Teche Sugar Co., 209 La. 717 , 25 So.2d 444; Nelson, Curtis & Nelson v. Bridge- *567 man, 152 La. 190 , 92 So. 855 ; Waller v. Colvin, 151 La. 765 , 92 So. 328 ) but the situation herein is more like the cases of Lattimer’s Heirs v. Gulf Refining Co., 146 La. 249 , 83 So. 543 (where it was contended that the description of 80 acres was omitted from the deed and should have been included) and Federal Land Bank of New Orleans v. Bankston, 196 La. 146 , 198 So. 886 (where the plaintiff sought to have the description in a mortgage r

1959This is not the situation of a clerical error (as in Brulatour v. Teche Sugar Co., 209 La. 717 , 25 So.2d 444; Nelson, Curtis & Nelson v. Bridge- *567 man, 152 La. 190 , 92 So. 855 ; Waller v. Colvin, 151 La. 765 , 92 So. 328 ) but the situation herein is more like the cases of Lattimer’s Heirs v. Gulf Refining Co., 146 La. 249 , 83 So. 543 (where it was contended that the description of 80 acres was omitted from the deed and should have been included) and Federal Land Bank of New Orleans v. Bankston, 196 La. 146 , 198 So. 886 (where the plaintiff sought to have the description in a mortgage r

1959This is not the situation of a clerical error (as in Brulatour v. Teche Sugar Co., 209 La. 717 , 25 So.2d 444; Nelson, Curtis & Nelson v. Bridge- *567 man, 152 La. 190 , 92 So. 855 ; Waller v. Colvin, 151 La. 765 , 92 So. 328 ) but the situation herein is more like the cases of Lattimer’s Heirs v. Gulf Refining Co., 146 La. 249 , 83 So. 543 (where it was contended that the description of 80 acres was omitted from the deed and should have been included) and Federal Land Bank of New Orleans v. Bankston, 196 La. 146 , 198 So. 886 (where the plaintiff sought to have the description in a mortgage r

1959This is not the situation of a clerical error (as in Brulatour v. Teche Sugar Co., 209 La. 717 , 25 So.2d 444; Nelson, Curtis & Nelson v. Bridge- *567 man, 152 La. 190 , 92 So. 855 ; Waller v. Colvin, 151 La. 765 , 92 So. 328 ) but the situation herein is more like the cases of Lattimer’s Heirs v. Gulf Refining Co., 146 La. 249 , 83 So. 543 (where it was contended that the description of 80 acres was omitted from the deed and should have been included) and Federal Land Bank of New Orleans v. Bankston, 196 La. 146 , 198 So. 886 (where the plaintiff sought to have the description in a mortgage r

1959This is not the situation of a clerical error (as in Brulatour v. Teche Sugar Co., 209 La. 717 , 25 So.2d 444; Nelson, Curtis & Nelson v. Bridge- *567 man, 152 La. 190 , 92 So. 855 ; Waller v. Colvin, 151 La. 765 , 92 So. 328 ) but the situation herein is more like the cases of Lattimer’s Heirs v. Gulf Refining Co., 146 La. 249 , 83 So. 543 (where it was contended that the description of 80 acres was omitted from the deed and should have been included) and Federal Land Bank of New Orleans v. Bankston, 196 La. 146 , 198 So. 886 (where the plaintiff sought to have the description in a mortgage r

1959This is not the situation of a clerical error (as in Brulatour v. Teche Sugar Co., 209 La. 717 , 25 So.2d 444; Nelson, Curtis & Nelson v. Bridge- *567 man, 152 La. 190 , 92 So. 855 ; Waller v. Colvin, 151 La. 765 , 92 So. 328 ) but the situation herein is more like the cases of Lattimer’s Heirs v. Gulf Refining Co., 146 La. 249 , 83 So. 543 (where it was contended that the description of 80 acres was omitted from the deed and should have been included) and Federal Land Bank of New Orleans v. Bankston, 196 La. 146 , 198 So. 886 (where the plaintiff sought to have the description in a mortgage r

1927On the other hand, in Jocelyn v. Barrett, 18 Ind. 128 , “the above-mentioned acts [plural]” was recognized as a mere clerical error, when, in fact, but one act was previously referred to; and in Hogan v. State, 36 Wis. 226 , it was held that an act “dangerous to others [plural]” included hn act dangerous even to only one other [this in a criminal statute, to be construed strictly].

1927On the other hand, in Jocelyn v. Barrett, 18 Ind. 128 , “the above-mentioned acts [plural]” was recognized as a mere clerical error, when, in fact, but one act was previously referred to; and in Hogan v. State, 36 Wis. 226 , it was held that an act “dangerous to others [plural]” included hn act dangerous even to only one other [this in a criminal statute, to be construed strictly].

1921The insertion of the wrong initial was, then, a mere clerical error, and the case' then corned squarely under the maxim, "Errores scribcntis nocere non debent — Clerical errors' ought -not to injure” (Hickman v. Boggus, 14 La.

1920"An amended petition may be received even after the trial has commenced, where its only object is to correct a mistake in the name of the plaintiff, e. g. by substituting "Joseph" for "John". 3 A., 139 ; 4 La., 298 ; 8 La., 298 ; 12 La., 9 ; 10 R., 431 , 12 R., 140 ; 1 A., 136 ; 5 A., 576 ; 30 A., 1247 ; 42 A., 65 . ^ There by an evident oleriel error a differs nt name from that' of the defendant in the suit has been inserted in the prayer of the petition, the suit should not fee dismissed, but leave granted to correct the error by an amendment instanter". 14 A., 609 ; 11 A., 420 .

1919In Chaffe v. Minden Lumber Co., 118 La. 753 , 43 South. 397 , the property sold consisted of a town property and a plantation, and the sale was being made for the purpose of effecting a partition of these two properties among the heirs, and both properties were actually sold; but in describing the plantation in his deed the sheriff left out by inadvertence one of the quarter sections composing the plantation.

1919In Chaffe v. Minden Lumber Co., 118 La. 753 , 43 South. 397 , the property sold consisted of a town property and a plantation, and the sale was being made for the purpose of effecting a partition of these two properties among the heirs, and both properties were actually sold; but in describing the plantation in his deed the sheriff left out by inadvertence one of the quarter sections composing the plantation.

1919In Vignie v. Brady, 35 La.

1825A mere clerical error of the kind would not avoid it. 9 Cranch, 28 . 5 Martin, 193 .