Harris v. Vatter
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., June 13, 1940 196 So. 574
Harris v. Vatter, 198 So. 548 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940).
Cited by
- Griffin v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company 189 So. 2d 324 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
Opinion text
McCALEB, Judge. After this cause was submitted on rehearing, counsel for plaintiff filed with us a motion to remand the matter for the purpose of permitting plaintiff to introduce testimony in rebuttal of the evidence given by the defendant’s witnesses. We find that the motion is untimely because it cannot be said that plaintiff was taken by surprise by the evidence adduced on behalf of the defendant. Counsel does not show that he requested a continuance from the trial judge and were we to grant this unusual request, it would serve as a precedent to stifle and hinder the orderly processes of justice. Litigation must come to an end. A careful reconsideration of the merits of this case convinces us that our former decree is correct and that it should be reinstated. For the reasons assigned, our original opinion and decree herein are reinstated as the final judgment of this Court. Original decree reinstated.