Bruning v. Barrett

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Bruning v. Barrett

36 So. 991, 113 La. 349, 1904 La. LEXIS 648

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJune 20, 1904

DocketNo. 15,107

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 36 So. 991 (Bruning v. Barrett) 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

Bruning v. Barrett, 36 So. 991, 113 La. 349, 1904 La. LEXIS 648 (La. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

PROVOSTY, J.

This suit, like that of Redersheimer v. Henry J. Bruning (this day decided) 36 South. 990,¹ involves the validity of a claim on a paving certificate. Among other issues raised in it is that as to the authority of the executive officers of the city to proceed to have the sidewalk work in question done by contract, without having first afforded an opportunity to the property owner to do the work herself. In the Redersheimer Case it was held that the executive officers of the city had no such authority, and that, as a consequence, the doing of-the work had been unauthorized, and had not had the effect of creating a debt against the property or its owner.

For this reason, for which the judgment in the Redersheimer Case was sustained, the judgment in the present ease must be set aside.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment appealed from he set aside, and that the plaintiff’s suit be dismissed at his cost.

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

PROVOSTY, J.

This suit, like that of Redersheimer v. Henry J. Bruning (this day decided) 36 South. 990,¹ involves the validity of a claim on a paving certificate. Among other issues raised in it is that as to the authority of the executive officers of the city to proceed to have the sidewalk work in question done by contract, without having first afforded an opportunity to the property owner to do the work herself. In the Redersheimer Case it was held that the executive officers of the city had no such authority, and that, as a consequence, the doing of-the work had been unauthorized, and had not had the effect of creating a debt against the property or its owner.

For this reason, for which the judgment in the Redersheimer Case was sustained, the judgment in the present ease must be set aside.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment appealed from he set aside, and that the plaintiff’s suit be dismissed at his cost.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 So. 991, 113 La. 349, 1904 La. LEXIS 648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bruning-v-barrett-la-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack