Farmer v. Jones
Also decided on this docket: La., May 29, 1899 26 So. 99
Farmer v. Jones, 125 So. 140 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929).
Cited by
- Vinet v. Checker Cab Company 140 So. 2d 252 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
- Cook v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. 124 So. 2d 183 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1960
- Kotteman Furniture Co. v. McLellan 2 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
- Camp v. National Casualty Co. 1 So. 2d 118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
- McDonald v. Badie 198 So. 545 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
- Smith v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 179 So. 606 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
- Reeves v. Globe Indemnity Co. of New York 168 So. 488 La. 1936
- Herbert v. Langhoff 164 So. 262 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
- Molero v. Wilson 147 So. 74 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
- Lucas v. Andress 136 So. 207 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
- Schatz v. Kehoe 131 So. 66 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State ex rel. Gondran v. Rost 48 La. Ann. 455
Opinion text
WESTERFIELD, J. Plaintiff filed suit against the defendant in the First City Court on six promissory notes, aggregating $120.00, and stipulating for 8 per cent interest and 30 per cent attorney’s fees. An answer was filed setting up a plea of want of consideration. With the issues thus made up the case went .to trial, only one witness being heard, the defendant. At the conclusion of defendant’s testimony plaintiff’s counsel verbally requested the court to dismiss the suit. The court declined to do so and rendered judgment for defendant, . whereupon plaintiff appealed. In his brief in this court plaintiff asks that the “judgment of the lower court be reversed and that there be judgment in favor of plaintiff, allowing plaintiff to discontinue this suit”, citing Art. 491, C. P., which reads: “The plaintiff may, in every stage of-the suit previous to judgment being rendered, discontinue the suit on paying’ the costs.” Assuming that this question can be raised on appeal, we observe that • the rule relied on by plaintiff is subject to exception: “For instance after the case has gone to trial and evidence has been adduced, the judge can exercise his discretion as to the kind of judgment he shall enter.” State ex rel. Gondrian, Administrator v. Judge, 48 La. Ann. 455 , 19 So. 256 . In the case before us defendant filed a reconventional demand, which was not proven and the court in its judgment reserved defendant’s right to establish it in another proceeding. We see no useful purpose to be subserved by interfering with the court below in the exercise of its discretion; consequently the judgment appealed from will be affirmed. For the. reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is affirmed.