Alfred Hiller Co. v. Hotel Grunewald Co.

84 So. 520, 147 La. 129, 1920 La. LEXIS 1841
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedApril 5, 1920
DocketNo. 22421
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 84 So. 520 (Alfred Hiller Co. v. Hotel Grunewald Co.) 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
Alfred Hiller Co. v. Hotel Grunewald Co., 84 So. 520, 147 La. 129, 1920 La. LEXIS 1841 (La. 1920).

Opinions

DAWKINS, J.

Plaintiff seeks to recover of the Grünewald Hotel Company, Limited, for materials furnished oné of the contractors employed in erecting defendant’s hotel building in the city of New Orleans. The ground upon which'it is sought to make the defendant liable is that it failed to record the contract and bond for the work within seven days after the same were executed, and before the work was commenced.

Certain exceptions were filed by the defendant, some of which are found in the record, and others seem to have been omitted, but all of which appear to have been overruled.

Defendant then filed a short general denial, and later supplemented the same with an amended answer calling in warranty the American Bonding Company of Baltimore, surety on the bond of the contractors, Expanded Metal Fireproofing Company, and the Northwestern Tile Company.

The warrantor excepted on the ground of vagueness, and, this being overruled, it answered, setting up that the defendant had [131]*131made material changes in the work with the contractor, without the consent of the warrantor, the bond company, and that it was the duty of the defendant to retain in its hands sufficient funds to cover claims which the contractors might owe other persons, as the law required; that it did so retain a sum more than sufficient to cover the claim of plaintiff; and that any judgment recovered by the Hiller Company, Limited, herein, should be paid out of said fund.

There was judgment in the court below in favor of defendant, and dismissing the warrantor. Plaintiff alone has appealed.

Opinion.

[1] None of the pleas and exceptions of the defendant and warrantor are now before us, for the reason that they did not appeal, nor have they answered the appeal of the plaintiff.

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

Related

Gulfco Finance Co. of Marrero v. Malone
230 So. 2d 269 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1969)
McGee v. Missouri Valley Dredging Co.
182 So. 2d 764 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1966)
Pennington v. Campanella
180 So. 2d 882 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1965)
Schwandt v. Nunez
71 So. 2d 583 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1954)
Tedesco v. Board of Sup'rs of Elections
43 So. 2d 514 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1949)
Callender v. Marks
166 So. 891 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1936)
Young v. Carnahan Creamery
157 So. 616 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1934)
Succession of Markham
156 So. 225 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1934)
Fowler Commission Co. v. E. J. Deas & Co.
127 So. 456 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1930)
Keith v. Lee
127 So. 139 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1930)
Eylers v. Roby Motors Co.
123 So. 477 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1929)
Bogue-Chitto Gravel Co. v. Police Jury of Lafourche Parish
122 So. 505 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1929)
Meriwether Supply Co. v. Baugh
6 La. App. 730 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1927)
Cole v. Schexnadire
111 So. 651 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1927)
Wilbert v. Wilbert
99 So. 36 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1923)
Siragusa v. Illinois Cent. R.
94 So. 376 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1922)
Nelson v. Allen
94 So. 379 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
84 So. 520, 147 La. 129, 1920 La. LEXIS 1841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alfred-hiller-co-v-hotel-grunewald-co-la-1920.