Baker v. Frellsen
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., April 1, 1963 152 So. 2d 239; La., June 15, 1877 29 La. Ann. 506; La. Ct. App. 3d Cir., January 21, 1964 158 So. 2d 336
Baker v. Frellsen, 32 La. Ann. 822 (1880).
Cited by
- Hunter v. Sandel 160 So. 87 La. 1935
- Alliance Trust Co. v. Streater 157 So. 726 La. 1934
- Gottlieb v. Avery Realty Co. 157 So. 369 La. 1934
- Nicholas v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland 152 So. 779 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
- Price v. Town of Ruston 148 So. 512 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
- Ducre v. Milner 126 So. 72 La. 1930
- American Multigraph Sales Co. v. Globe Indemnity Co. 123 So. 358 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
- Typhoon Fan Co. v. Pilsbury 118 So. 70 La. 1927
- Ducros v. St. Bernard Cypress Co. 114 So. 654 La. 1927
- Succession of Pavelka 109 So. 403 La. 1926
- Keen Woolf v. Caldwell 108 So. 318 La. 1926
- John Barkley & Co. v. Ham & Seymour 103 So. 245 La. 1921
Opinion text
On Motion to Dismiss. Bermudez, C. J. The plaintiff, Baker, having, in aid of a suit previously instituted, obtained an injunction to arrest a suit against him, furnished the bond required, with John T. Ludeling as surety therein. Parties plaintiff and defendant being desirous of having the suit determined, agreed that it could be heard and decided, at chambers, after the adjournment of the court and term time. The document signed to that effect was noted on the minutes. It was not signed by the surety on the bond for the injunction. In furtherance of the agreement, the case was taken up, decided, and the judgment was signed by a judge ad hoc at chambers, without any knowledge or participation on the part of the surety. The judgment was, that the injunction be dissolved without damages. From this judgment an appeal was taken by petition, and citation was served on the surety on the injunction bond. He now moves this Court to dismiss the appeal, because he was no party to the consent that the *825 ¡ease be tried at chambers, and is not bound by the judgment so rendered. 0£ whatever relief the irregularities charged may be to the surety, they cannot be inquired into on a motion to dismiss, as they necessitate ■an investigation into the facts of the case as presented by the appeal. Tlie validity of those objections will be tested and passed upon when the merits of the case will be considered and determined. Motion overruled.