McKowen v. Kernan
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., May 26, 1982 415 So. 2d 640; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., May 29, 1972 263 So. 2d 484; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., November 25, 1958 107 So. 2d 553; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., March 30, 1925 2 La. App. 59
McKowen v. Kernan, 35 La. Ann. 331 (1883).
Opinion text
Concurring Opinion. Bermudez, C. J. It does not appertain to the functions and duties of an attorney-at law employed to revive a judgment, to. give his personal attention and care to the reinscription of the judgment to be re *336 vived. In the absence of a special contract clearly shown in such a case, which is more an act of ordinary agency or administration, which is not shown in this case, the attorney cannot be held liable for damages, if any were sustained. Por that reason I concur in the decree. Manning, J. I place my concurrence on the ground stated by the Chief Justice.