No. 10914 Precedential Reversed and remanded Processed

First Metropolitan Bank v. Plaia

Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit · Filed October 9, 1980 · 389 So. 2d 870

Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., November 15, 1976 340 So. 2d 584; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., May 13, 1980 384 So. 2d 560; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., January 11, 1968 206 So. 2d 753

Cited by

Organ v. Value Business Center, Inc. 609 So. 2d 998 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
Bank of Coushatta v. Patrick 503 So. 2d 1061 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

First Metropolitan Bank v. Plaia 384 So. 2d 560
Atteberry v. Atteberry 386 So. 2d 94

Opinion text

SCHOTT, Judge. This case was previously submitted to a panel of this court which included Judge Hood who died prior to the rendition of the opinion appearing at 384 So.2d 560 . The Supreme Court remanded the case to us for reargument because our decision was a reversal of the trial court’s judgment and because the opinion was handed down by only two of the original three judges who heard the case. The Court reasoned that defendants were denied the possibility of reargument before a five judge panel as required by La.Const. Art. 5, § 8(B) (1974), 386 So.2d 94 . Having heard reargument we affirm our original opinion and reinstate our decree. We note that appellees have continued to emphasize their position that plaintiff is not entitled to have the stock reissued because plaintiff as a pledgee of Plaia is only in an agency status and can have no greater rights than its principal. Obviously Plaia could not make that demand since it was through his fraudulent activities that the duplicate certificates were issued in the first place. This is not a suit to compel the issuance of stock. The claim by plaintiff is for damages it sustained as a result of appellees permitting the duplicate certificates to enter the market place without taking some action to safeguard against loss which might be incurred by a holder of the original certificates, thereby breaching some duty to plaintiff. We have held simply that plaintiff stated a cause of action against appellees and is entitled to try its case. REVERSED AND REMANDED.