Woodcock v. Crehan
Woodcock v. Crehan, 28 So. 2d 61 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946).
Cited by
- Stahlman Lumber Co.-Div. of Staco Mfg. Co. v. Ferrill 320 So. 2d 331 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
- Allied Nav. Co., Inc. v. INTERN. ORG. OF MASTERS, MATES & PILOTS 272 So. 2d 23 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
- Sikes v. Waters 264 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
- Alexander v. Hancock Bank 241 So. 2d 810 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
- McInnis v. McInnis 212 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
- Lounsberry v. Hoffpauir 199 So. 2d 553 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
- Bulk Transport, Inc. v. General Truck Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers Local Union No. 5 195 So. 2d 159 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
- Molero v. Bass 190 So. 2d 141 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
- Gierczic v. Gierczic 150 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Richardson v. Ledbetter 14 La. 156
Opinion text
Plaintiff instituted this suit to recover from defendant a personal judgment in the sum of two hundred thirty-seven dollars *Page 62 and twenty cents ($237.20), based on a claim for past due rent and the removal by him of certain furnishings entrusted to his care in the use of a rented apartment. He was cited as being a resident of the City of Baton Rouge. The defendant excepted to the jurisdiction of the court ratione personae and ratione materiae. The exceptions were fixed for trial. Evidence was introduced. There was judgment overruling the exceptions. Defendant has appealed. Plaintiff has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. It is now well settled that a judgment or order overruling exceptions is an interlocutory judgment and an appeal does not lie from such a judgment, as said judgment produces no such injury as may not be remedied on an appeal from the final judgment on the merits, and the exceptions of jurisdiction ratione personae and ratione materiae are no exception to the rule. See Howard v. Cox, 7 Mart., N.S., 102; Richardson v. Ledbetter, 14 La. 156 . Appeal dismissed.