National Rice Milling Co. v. New Orleans & N. E. R.
National Rice Milling Co. v. New Orleans & N. E. R., 61 So. 708 (La. 1912).
Cited by
Overruled in 1
- Colotra v. Railway Express Agency 32 So. 2d 69 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
- Close v. Missouri Pac. R. Co. 191 So. 596 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
- Templeman v. Templeman Bros. 156 So. 824 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1934
- Jennings v. Missouri Pac. R. Co. 134 So. 694 La. 1931
- Livaudais v. Black 127 So. 129 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
- Raphiel v. American Railway Express Co. 120 So. 786 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
- Dejean v. Louisiana Western R. Co. 118 So. 822 La. 1928
- Bonura & Co. v. Payne 7 La. App. 754 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
- Japhet & Co. v. Southern Railway Co. 8 La. App. 706 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
- Eatman v. T. & P. R. R. Co. 6 La. App. 638 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
- Guidry v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. 6 La. App. 169 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
- Calhoun v. American Railway Express Co. 3 La. App. 628 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
Opinion text
On Rehearing — On Motion to Dismiss. BREAUX, C. J. [2] Plaintiff filed the following motion to dismiss the appeal: “On motion of Hall, Monroe & Lemann, counsel for the New Orleans & Northeastern Railroad Company and the Southern Railway Company, and on suggestion, the final judgment was rendered herein against both of these defendants in solido on the 15th of November, 1910, that judgment having been signed on the 21st day of November, 1910, that movers are advised that there is error in said judgment to their prejudice, and that they desire to appeal therefrom suspensively.” It is ordered that, upon compliance with the requirements of law, they be granted a suspensive appeal from the judgment. *636 It appears by the motion of appeal that the appeal was taken from a judgment rendered against both defendants. Bond was furnished accordingly. The two railroad companies were granted an appeal. The appeal was taken by counsel representing the defendants. Counsel are not parties in interest in the case. The appeal was taken for defendants. The motion has no merit. It is overruled.