Bryceland Lumber Co. v. Berlin

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Bryceland Lumber Co. v. Berlin

78 So. 482, 143 La. 242

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedApril 1, 1918

DocketNo. 21440

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 78 So. 482 (Bryceland Lumber Co. v. Berlin) 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

Bryceland Lumber Co. v. Berlin, 78 So. 482, 143 La. 242 (La. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

O’NIELL, J.

This is an action to recover 87,028.60 paid by the plaintiff for debts due by the defendants. The suit is similar to the two eases of the same title reported in 137 La. 1, 68 South. 192, and 140 La. 867, 74 South. 177.

The only serious defense made is a plea of prescription of one and three years, which plea was rejected by the district court. T. J. Berlin alone has appealed from the judgment rendered against him and the T. J, Berlin Lumber Company in solido.

The debts paid by the plaintiff, to recover [243]*243which this suit was brought, were due by the T. J. Kerlin Lumber Company, whose property was sold by T. J. Kerlin to the plaintiff under a written contract of warranty on Kerlin’s part against such debts. 1-Ie owned or controlled all of the capital stock of the corporation whose property he transferred to the Bryceland Lumber Company. Thereafter, as vice president and general manager of the latter corporation, he had the accounts credited to his and the T. J. Kerlin Lumber Company’s creditors, on the books of the Bryceland Lumber Company, and caused the debts to be paid with funds of the Bryceland Lumber Company. A suit by the latter to recover the amount so paid is not subject to the prescription of one year nor of three years, but to that of ten years. R. C. C. 3544; Reddick v. White, 46 La. Ann. 1208, 15 South. 487.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

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

O’NIELL, J.

This is an action to recover 87,028.60 paid by the plaintiff for debts due by the defendants. The suit is similar to the two eases of the same title reported in 137 La. 1, 68 South. 192, and 140 La. 867, 74 South. 177.

The only serious defense made is a plea of prescription of one and three years, which plea was rejected by the district court. T. J. Berlin alone has appealed from the judgment rendered against him and the T. J, Berlin Lumber Company in solido.

The debts paid by the plaintiff, to recover [243]*243which this suit was brought, were due by the T. J. Kerlin Lumber Company, whose property was sold by T. J. Kerlin to the plaintiff under a written contract of warranty on Kerlin’s part against such debts. 1-Ie owned or controlled all of the capital stock of the corporation whose property he transferred to the Bryceland Lumber Company. Thereafter, as vice president and general manager of the latter corporation, he had the accounts credited to his and the T. J. Kerlin Lumber Company’s creditors, on the books of the Bryceland Lumber Company, and caused the debts to be paid with funds of the Bryceland Lumber Company. A suit by the latter to recover the amount so paid is not subject to the prescription of one year nor of three years, but to that of ten years. R. C. C. 3544; Reddick v. White, 46 La. Ann. 1208, 15 South. 487.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 So. 482, 143 La. 242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bryceland-lumber-co-v-berlin-la-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack