A.A. Theriot v. Caffery

106 So. 700, 160 La. 78, 1925 La. LEXIS 2369
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedNovember 30, 1925
DocketNo. 26984.
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 106 So. 700 (A.A. Theriot v. Caffery) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
A.A. Theriot v. Caffery, 106 So. 700, 160 La. 78, 1925 La. LEXIS 2369 (La. 1925).

Opinion

ROGERS, J.

In the court below this suit was consolidated for the purposes of the trial, with the suit appearing on our docket under No. 26985, 106 So. 698, 2 and this day decided. The defendant Humble Oil & Refining Company filed an exception of misjoinder of parties defendant. This exception was sustained, and the suit as to them was dismissed. Oh the merits, judgment was rendered against the remaining defendant, John M. Caffery, and he has appealed therefrom.

Although plaintiffs did not appeal from the judgment dismissing the Humble Oil & Refining Company from the suit, they have filed a motion in this court for an amendment of the judgment against the defendant John'M. Caffery so as to decree the Humble Oil & Refining Company a party to and bound by the said judgment. However, the disposition we are making of the case dispenses with the necessity of our formally passing on this motion.

*79 Both suits involve the validity of the' same patent. The difference between them is that this suit is for the recovery of $4,000, and certain rights and royalties reserved, while its companion suit is for a part of the land itself. Inasmuch as the issues affecting the ownership of the fund and royalty rights and those affecting the ownership of the land are the same, the reasons announced by us in our decision in case No. 26985 are appropriate to and decisive of the instant case.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is set aside, and it is now ordered that there be judgment in favor of defendant John M. Gaffery, rejecting plaintiffs’ demands, and dismissing their suit at their cost.

LAND, J., takes no part. THOMPSON, J., dissents.
2

Ante, p. 72.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Crane v. Sun Oil Co.
223 So. 2d 14 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
106 So. 700, 160 La. 78, 1925 La. LEXIS 2369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aa-theriot-v-caffery-la-1925.