Meriwether v. Dorrity
Meriwether v. Dorrity, 104 So. 187 (La. 1925).
Cited by
- Star Shoe Co. v. Hendricks 45 So. 2d 428 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
- Franklinton Canning Co. v. Blaize & Johnson 191 So. 318 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
- Riccobono v. Kearney 7 La. App. 738 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Holden v. Tanner 6 La. Ann. 74
- 20 La. Ann. 539 not in our corpus
- Succession of Romero 137 La. 236
Opinion text
On Application for Rehearing PER CURIAM. Of course defendants should receive credit for all the rent collected by plaintiff after defendants had abandoned the premises, and during the term for which they are held liable; same to be imputed as of the date when collected.' Holden v. Tanner, 6 La. Ann. 74 ; Ledoux v. Jones, 20 La. Ann. 539 ; see, also, Succession of Romero, 137 La. 236, 251 , 68 So. 433 . But no amendment of our decree is necessary for that purpose, since such credit may be urged as a set-off against the judgment itself, in reduction and partial compensation thereof. Code of Practice, art. 373; Caldwell v. Davis, 2 Mart. (N. S.) 135. Rehearing refused.