McMichael v. Thomas
McMichael v. Thomas, 113 So. 828 (La. 1927).
Cited by
- State Ex Rel. Sunseri v. Thoman 154 So. 2d 480 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
- Kelly v. Moore 74 So. 2d 379 La. 1954
- Johnson v. Sandifer 56 So. 2d 762 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
- York v. Baton Rouge Electric Co. 127 So. 431 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
- A. Maternis Co. v. Baton Rouge Poster Advertising Co. 125 So. 293 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
Opinion text
On the Merits. O’NIELL, C. J. A. W. McMichael brought suit against I. L. Thomas to annul a sale of 825 shares of stock in the Thomas Gravel Company, Inc., made by Thomas to McMichael, on the ground of fraudulent misrepresentation of the value of.the stock. A. H. Henderson intervened in the suit, claiming that he was the purchaser of 160 of the 825 shares of stock, and therefore had an interest in joining in the plaintiff’s action to annul the sale. Answering the petition of intervention, the defendant denied that he had sold any of the stock to Henderson, or had had' any dealings with him, and averred that he had merely accepted Henderson’s indorsement on McMiehael’s promissory notes for a part of the price of the 825 shares of stock sold to McMichael. Henderson did not appear at the trial of the case, either in person, or through his attorneys, and no evidence whatever was offered in his behalf to show that he had bought any of the capital stock from the defendant. The court gave judgment in favor of the defendant, rejecting the plaintiff’s demand, without referring to the petition of intervention. Treating the judgment as a rejection also of his petition of intervention — -which in fact it was — Henderson appealed. McMichael also appealed from the judgment. Thereafter a creditor of McMichael, having a judgment against him, seized his interest in the suit, and I. L. Thomas bought McMichael’s interest in the suit at the sheriff’s sale. The claim of McMichael against Thomas being thus extinguished by confusion, McMichael’s appeal was dismissed by a decree of this court. As far as the record shows, Henderson did not buy any of the stock from Thomas, but perhaps acquired a part of the 825 shares by agreement with McMichael. The judgment appealed from is therefore correct as far as Henderson is concerned. His attorneys did not argue the case or file a brief in his behalf, and perhaps concede that the judgment is correct as to his intervention. The judgment is affirmed, so far as A. H. Henderson, intervener, is concerned.