Plaintiff instituted this as a possessory action, claiming a disturbance by tbe defendant; in her possession, of a ten-acre tract of land of .which' she alleges she bas been in actual, physical, open, and peaceable possession for more than a year prior to tbe disturbance complained of. With her demand to be maintained and quieted in her possession, she couples one for damages arising out of tbe alleged disturbance and also seeks to enjoin tbe defendant from further interference.

In his answer tbe defendant denies all tbe allegations of tbe petition concerning tbe possession claimed by plaintiff and then sets up title to tbe property in himself. He prays that tbe plaintiff’s suit be dismissed at her costs. .

Tbe note of evidence contains a stipulation to the effect that tbe plaintiff consented to the cumulation of tbe petitory with her posses-sory action, with reservation of her right to prosecute her claim for damages under the demands which she bad made.

From tbe extract of tbe minutes of tbe court certified to by a deputy clerk of court, it appears that judgment was rendered in open court on May 12, 1932, ordering tbe plaintiff’s suit dismissed at her costs, and that tbe judgment was read and signed in open court on September 23,1932. We search tbe record in vain, however, for any such judgment as, is indicated by tbe minutes, was signed by tbe district judge on September 23, 1932. In fact, we find no judgment whatsoever, except tbe copy of tbe one which is purported to bave been rendered, read, and signed, which appears in the extract from tbe minutes of court. If such judgment as therein copied was rendered, it seems to bave decided the issues involved and therefore was a final and definitive judgment. As such, it had to be signed by tbe district judge, O. P. art. 546, and until it was signed, it was not appealable. Orleans & Jefferson Railway Co., Ltd., v. International Construction Co., 113 La. 409, 410, 37 So. 10. An appeal from a judgment which, from the record appears not to have been signed, is held, in Succession of Millaudon, 23 La. Ann. 400, to be nugatory and cannot be entertained. In River & Rails Terminals, Inc., v. Louisiana Railway & Navigation Co., 157 La. 1085, 103 So. 331, the Supreme Court says: “Code Prac. art. 546, provides that tbe judge must sign all definitive or final judgments rendered by him, and it is well settled, by tbe decisions of this court that no appeal lies from an unsigned judgment.” Tbe court then cites numerous decisions to that effect.

It might be urged in this case that tbe entry of tbe judgment on tbe minutes of the court supplies tbe deficiency of tbe signed judgment, but such an entry, it bas also been held, is not sufficient, even when the minutes ' of court are signéd by tbe judge, to ■ constitute a judgment. ;

. “Article 546 of the Code Practice requires tbe judge to sign all final decrees or judgments. This is absolutely essential to constitute a judgment.

*271 “The minutes of the court, even if signed by the judge, are not sufficient to make the entries therein of decrees final and definitive.” State of Louisiana ex rel. Vignes v. Judge, 43 La. Ann. 1169, 10 So. 294.

From the syllabus in the case of State ex rel. Hartwell v. Jumel, 30 La. Ann. 421, we quote: “The signature of the judge to any final decree rendered by him, is absolutely necessary to constitute it a judgment. Mere entries of judgment on the minutes of a court, unsigned by the judge of the court, are not judgments.” .

In the absence of a signed judgment in this case, the appeal cannot be entertained and will have to be dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the appeal herein taken be, and the same is hereby, dismissed at the costs of the appellant.