Iberville Trust & Saving Bank v. City Café
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., October 5, 1933 150 So. 95
Iberville Trust & Saving Bank v. City Café, 151 So. 267 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933).
Cited by
- Todd-Johnson Dry Docks v. City of New Orleans 55 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
- Gonzales v. Hanle 46 So. 2d 369 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1950
- Blackburn v. Chenet 42 So. 2d 288 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
- Maher v. New Orleans Linen Supply Co. 41 So. 2d 101 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
- Hero v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co. 19 So. 2d 887 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
- Lervick v. White Top Cabs 10 So. 2d 67 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
- Cato v. City of New Orleans 4 So. 2d 450 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
- Thomas v. Shippers' Compress & Warehouse Co. 158 So. 859 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Iberville Trust Saving Bank v. City Caf&201 143 So. 73
- Iberville Trust Savings Bk. v. City Caf&200 150 So. 95
- 143 La. 399 not in our corpus
- Tremont Lumber Co. v. May 78 So. 650
Opinion text
MOUTON, Judge. The original petition in this case was filed in May, 1931, the second in September, 1932. In our original opinion ( 143 So. 73 ) we held that plaintiff had not set out a cause of action against the City Café, and, as to that defendant, dismissed its suit. In the judgment by us in the second suit ( 150 So. 95 ), we held! that plaintiff had filed an amended petition which had no legal effect, as, legally speaking, there was no petition in the original suit because it did not show a cause of action, hence, there was nothing to amend, citing in support of this conclusion, Tremont Lumber Co. v. May, 143 La. 399 , 78 So. 650 . Counsel for plaintiff in their application for a rehearing contend that we fell into an error in 'holding that the second petition was an amendment of the original petition. The district judge, in his written opinion, says that the supplemental petition, it seems: to him, does not change the issues of the origr inal demand, and for that reason maintained the exception of no cause or right of action. We, however, accepted the supplemental petition as an amendment, but for lack of essential allegations to give it the character of a new suit, the judgment below was maintained. For these reasons and those given in our second opinion, the application for a rehearing is refused. ELLIOTT, J., dissenting.