
    (99 South. 870)
    No. 26572.
    BAUMGARDEN v. AIKEN et al. In re ABRY BROS.
    (April 21, 1924.)
    
      (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
    
    Certiorari &wkey;>68 — Supreme Court will not review fact findings of Court of Appeals in absence of exceptional features of law.
    Where the Court of Appeals found as a fact that the acts or omissions of a subcontractor caused an accident by which plaintiff was injured, the Supreme Court will not entertain a writ of review to examine such question of fact, no exceptional feature of law being presented, but merely the simple enforcement of Rev. Civ. Code, art. 2315, in a case wherein it was clearly applicable and correctly applied.
    Certiorari to Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans.
    Action by N. Emile Baumgarden against Mrs. Ada Holcombe Aiken and others. Judgment for plaintiff against Abry Brothers on appeal to tbe Court of Appeal, and they apply for certiorari or writ of review.
    Writ denied.
    George Montgomery, of New Orleans, for applicants.
    Edward Rigbtor and E. V. Parham, both of New Orleans, for N. Emile Baumgarden.
    Warren Y. Miller, of New Orleans, for Alfred M. Barnes.
    Denegre, Leovy & Chaffe, of New Orleans, for Mrs. Ada Holcombe, wife of Dr. Gayle Aiken.
    
      John May and M. M. Boatner, both of New Orleans, for John S. Pearce.
    Lazarus, Michel & Lazarus, and H. S. Weil, all of New Orleans, for Jacob E. Mose■man.
    By the WHOLE COURT.
   ST. PAUL, J.

As clearly appears from the opinion handed down by the Court of Appeal, it was admitted at the trial hereof in the court below, “by agreement dictated into the record, that plaintiff is entitled to recover something from some one or more of the defendants” ; hence the only questions involved were, How much he should recover? and From which of the defendants?

It further appears from the syllabus to that opinion (prepared by the court itself according to custom) that the court found as a fact that “the acts or omissions (of the relator', a subcontractor) are shown to have been the cause of the accident “by which plaintiff was injured.”

It likewise appears from the said opinion that the trial judge (and a jury) found also that the accident resulted from the acts or omissions of relator, and of no one else.

I.

In H. Weston Lumber Co. v. Anderson & Allen, 52 La. Ann. 205, this court held that it would not call up for re-examination any case regularly appealed to and passed upon by a Court of Appeal, which did not present “those exceptional features, whether of law or fact, which alone, under the rule announced in repeated decisions, justify the granting of the writ of review.”

In Francez v. Francez, 152 La. 666, 94 South. 203, we held further that —

“The extraordinary powers of supervision, control, and review, granted to the Supreme Court over all inferior courts, will not be so exercised as to favor litigants with an appeal to this court in cases where the lawmaker has not thought proper to authorize such an appeal, and accordingly this cowt will not in any such proceeding re-examine A QUESTION OF FACT duly passed upon by a court of competent jurisdiction.” (Italics and capitals ours.)

II.

And in face of the- facts so found, this case presents no “exceptional feature * * * of law” whatever, but merely the simple enforcement of the plain provisions of the Revised Civil Code, art. 2315, in a case where those provisions are clearly applicable, and in which the Court of Appeal has manifestly applied them correctly.

The application should therefore be refused, and the writ denied.

PER CURIAM. For the reasons assigned, the application is refused, and the writ denied. 
      
       27 South. 1030.
     