Lichentag v. Feitel
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., August 20, 1971 252 So. 2d 349; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., May 5, 1969 223 So. 2d 202; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., January 10, 1952 56 So. 2d 169; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., January 31, 1929 119 So. 726; La., March 15, 1872 24 La. Ann. 177
Lichentag v. Feitel, 2 Teiss. 7 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1904).
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
Opinion text
DUFOUR, J. The present appellants were appellees in suit No. 322!, recently decided, and that decision exhausted our ap-pelate jurisdiction in the premises. No review cafl now he had of a judgment, which could have been had on the first appeal, either by motion to amend or be becoming appellants. Arts. 888-889 C. P. 42 An. 441, 48 A. 351 , 105 La. 309 . The first decision concludes both appellants and appellees, Tire motion to dismiss must prevail.