Consolidated Carbon Company v. United Carbon Company
Consolidated Carbon Company v. United Carbon Company, 131 So. 57 (La. 1930).
Cited by
- Town of Haynesville, Inc. v. Entergy Corp. 956 So. 2d 192 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
- Miller v. Entergy Services, Inc. 913 So. 2d 143 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
- In Re New Orleans Train Car Leakage 690 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
- Pine Tree Associates v. DOCTORS'ASSOCIATES, INC. 654 So. 2d 735 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
- Green v. Champion Ins. Co. 577 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
- Adams v. Associates Corp. of North America 390 So. 2d 539 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
- Hughes Realty Company v. Pfister 245 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
- Johnson v. Kinchen 160 So. 2d 296 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
- State Ex Rel. Porterie v. Gulf, Mobile & N. R. 184 So. 711 La. 1938
- Frigidaire Sales Corp. v. Alexandria Bank & Trust Co. 145 So. 703 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
Opinion text
O’NIELL, C. J. The plaintiff has appealed from a judgment dismissing this suit on an exception to the' jurisdiction of the court. The defendant is a Delaware corporation, having its domicile in Wilmington, in that state. The suit is for $19,000, claimed as an unpaid balance of the price or consideration for which the plaintiff transferred to the defendant, by a deed signed in New York, property situated in Louisiana, and intended to be used and actually used in the business done by the defendant in this state. The citation and copy of the petition were served upon the resident agent appointed by the defendant in compliance with the requirements of Act No. 1S4 of 1924, in the parish where the principal business establishment of the defendant is, and where the property sold is situated. The essential facts of the case, and the issues presented, are the same as in the case of United Oil & Natural Gas Products Corporation v. United Carbon Company, 131 So. 52 , 1 decided to-day, in which we held that the indebtedness alleged, if it existed, was a liability connected with the business done by the defendant in this state, in the meaning of Act JSfo. 184 of 1924, and that the district court in Ouachita parish therefore had jurisdiction over the case. For the reasons given in the opinion rendered in that case, the judgment appealed from is annulled, the defendant’s exception to the jurisdiction is overruled, and the case is ordered remanded to the district court for further proceedings. The defendant is to pay the costs of the trial of the exception to the jurisdiction, and the costs of this appeal; all other costs to abide the final judgment to be rendered in the case. THOMPSON. J., takes no part. 1 Ante, p. 374.