Pacific Finance Co. of Caddo v. Benson
Also decided on this docket: La., March 15, 1887 39 La. Ann. 340; La. Ct. App. 4th Cir., February 6, 1979 367 So. 2d 1318; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., October 24, 1974 298 So. 2d 291
Pacific Finance Co. of Caddo v. Benson, 149 So. 2d 239 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963).
Cited by
- Goodman v. Spillers 686 So. 2d 160 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
- State, Dept. of Social Serv. v. Coleman 616 So. 2d 844 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
- Eugene v. Ventress 209 So. 2d 341 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
- Shell Oil Company v. Texas Gas Transmission Corp. 176 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
- Giroir v. Dumesnil 172 So. 2d 89 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
- Pacific Finance Co. of Caddo v. Benson 150 So. 2d 588 La. 1963
Opinion text
HARDY, Judge (dissenting). The majority opinion correctly states the fact that plaintiff in this suit attempted to state a different cause of action. It is my opinion, from examination of the pleadings, that he has signally failed in this effort. *245 I am convinced that this suit lies between the same parties on the same cause of action and seeks the same relief — a money judgment — which was asserted by this plaintiff in the former suit. It follows that the plea of res judicata was correctly sustained. Therefore, I respectfully dissent from the conclusion and the decree set forth in the majority opinion. Rehearing denied; HARDY, J., dissents.