DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Ware F. M. C. v. Barataria & Lafourche Canal Co., 15 La. 169.

16 citing documents.

  • Starnes v. Monsour's No. 4 30 So. 2d 135 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
    Defendants cite and rely upon the following cases in their effort to convince us that Principe acted beyond the scope of his authority and for this reason the employer and its insurer are not responsible in damages for his unlawful acts, to-wit: , 35 Am.Dec.
  • Ideal Savings & Homestead Ass'n v. Kerner 23 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
    539 ; Ware v. Barataria & Lafourche Canal Co., , 35 Am.Dec.
  • Ideal Savings Homestead Ass'n v. Kerner 23 So. 2d 200 La. 1945
  • Healey v. Playland Amusements, Inc. 199 So. 682 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
    Ware v. Barataria & La Fourche Canal Co., , 35 Am.Dec.
  • Wisemore v. First Nat. Life Ins. Co. 183 So. 247 La. 1938
    If this be so, it would be unjust to make it responsible for an unauthorized accusation made by one of its officers against another person.” In an earlier case, , 35 Am.Dec.
  • Johnson v. Butterworth 157 So. 121 La. 1934
    206 , in 1837; Ware v. Barataria & Lafourche Canal Co., , 35 Am.
  • Davis v. Lindsay Furniture Co. 138 So. 439 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
    The rule stated in Ware v. Barataria & Lafourche Canal Co., , 35 Am.
  • Godchaux v. Texas & P. Ry. Co. 81 So. 706 La. 1919
    her in fact the foreman struck plaintiff, and, if so, whether it was done in the discharge of the functions of his employment, or for some reason personal to himself, will, no doubt, be developed on the trial.” Counsel for defendant cite the following cases, in all except the last of which we find the rulings very pertinent to the case before us, viz.: Ware v. Barataria & Lafourche Canal Co., , 35 Am.
  • Ragas v. Douglas 72 So. 242 La. 1916
    It is true that, in Ware v. Barataria, etc., Co., , 35 Am.
  • Humphrey v. Planters' Fertilizer & Chemical Co. 6 Teiss. 131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1909
  • Queen v. Schwann 44 So. 276 La. 1907
    Law (2d Ed.) p. 171; , 35 Am.
  • Schmidt v. New Orleans Rys. Co. 40 So. 714 La. 1906
    539 ; also, Ware v. Barataria & L. Canal Co., , 35 Am.
  • Graham v. St. Charles Street Railroad 18 So. 707 La. 1895
    492 ; Ware vs. Barataria and Lafourche Central Company, ; Hart vs. New Orleans & Carrollton Railroad Company, 1 Rob.
  • Lafitte v. New Orleans, City & Lake Railroad 43 La. Ann. 34 La. 1891
    88; 8 Robinson 150 ; ; 28 An.
  • Williams v. Pullman Palace Car Co. 40 La. Ann. 87 La. 1888
    ts, but this Court rejected the demand, saying: “When an agent, losing sight of the object for which he is employed, commits wrong and causes damage, the principal is no more answerable for them than any stranger; as to such wrongs, the agent must be considered as acting- of his own will, and not in the course of his employment, or under any implied authority of his principal.” Ware vs Barataria, .
  • Etting v. Commercial Bank 7 La. 459 La. 1844