Typhoon Fan Co. v. Pilsbury
Typhoon Fan Co. v. Pilsbury, 118 So. 70 (La. 1927).
Cited by
- Steve Crooks v. State of La., Department of Natural Resources La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
- Jacobs v. Calcasieu Frozen Foods, Inc. 118 So. 2d 145 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1960
- Woods v. William Rednour Transfer Storage Co. 3 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
- State v. Up-To-Date Shoe Repairing Co. 151 So. 74 La. 1933
- Orleans Homestead Ass'n v. Williams 131 So. 39 La. 1930
- Typhoon Fan Co. v. Pilsbury 118 So. 73 La. 1927
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Pilsbury v. Typhoon Fan Co. 162 La. 81
- Baker v. Frellsen 32 La. Ann. 822
- Thomas v. Guilbeau 35 La. Ann. 927
- Pasley v. McConnell 39 La. Ann. 1097
- 3 So. 484 not in our corpus
- Drewes & Co. v. Ham & Seymour 157 La. 861
- John Barkley & Co. v. Ham & Seymour 157 La. 872
- Succession of Damico 161 La. 725
- Succession of Pavelka 161 La. 728
Opinion text
On Motion to Dismiss. OYERiTON, J. Plaintiff has appealed from a judgment sustaining a. plea of res adjudicata, and defendant has moved to dismiss, the appeal. The grounds urged for dismissing the appeal may be summed up as follows: (1) That the appeal is frivolous; (2) that it is taken solely for the purpose of harassing defendant and delaying the execution of - a final judgment, rendered by this court, in a suit between the same parties ( 162 La. 81 , 110 So. 96 ), whereby plaintiff is seeking to try anew the issues disposed of in that suit. As to whether or not the appeal is frivolous, and is taken merely for the purpose of harassing the appellee and of delaying the execution of a judgment, necessarily involves *885 an inquiry into the facts and merits of the case. Where a motion to dismiss is based upon grounds requiring such an inquiry, the motion will be denied, and the appeal will be heard regularly upon its merits. Baker v. Frellsen, 32 La. Ann. 822 ; Thomas v. Guilbeau, 35 La. Ann. 927 ; Pasley v. McConnell, 39 La. Ann. 1097 , 3 So. 484 , 485; Drewes & Co. v. Ham & Seymour, 157 La. 861 , 103 So. 241 ; John Barkley & Co., Limited, v. Ham & Seymour, 157 La. 872 , 103 So. 245 ; Succession of Damico, 161 La. 725 , 109 So. 402 ; Succession of Pavelka, 161 La. 728 , 109 So. 403 . The motion to dismiss is overruled.