Buckley v. C. R. I. & P. Ry. Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Buckley v. C. R. I. & P. Ry. Co.

8 La. App. 365, 1928 La. App. LEXIS 525

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 3, 1928

DocketNo. 3120

StatusPublished

This text of 8 La. App. 365 (Buckley v. C. R. I. & P. Ry. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Buckley v. C. R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 8 La. App. 365, 1928 La. App. LEXIS 525 (La. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

WEBB, J.

The plaintiff, J. E. Buckley, was the owner of the truck which was being driven by John Pylant, the plaintiff in suit No. 3121, John Pylant versus Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, this day decided, and the present plaintiff brought suit to recover damages to the truck and appeals from a judgment rejecting his demands.

[366]*366John Pylant was the employee of the plaintiff, Buckley, and the collision resulting in damages to the truck occurred while Pylant was driving the truck in the course of and while engaged in the employment and business of Buckley, and the ruling in No. 3121, John Pylant versus Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, is in all respects applicable to J. E. Buckley’s demands, and for the reasons assigned in said suit the judgment herein appealed from is affirmed.

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

WEBB, J.

The plaintiff, J. E. Buckley, was the owner of the truck which was being driven by John Pylant, the plaintiff in suit No. 3121, John Pylant versus Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, this day decided, and the present plaintiff brought suit to recover damages to the truck and appeals from a judgment rejecting his demands.

[366]*366John Pylant was the employee of the plaintiff, Buckley, and the collision resulting in damages to the truck occurred while Pylant was driving the truck in the course of and while engaged in the employment and business of Buckley, and the ruling in No. 3121, John Pylant versus Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, is in all respects applicable to J. E. Buckley’s demands, and for the reasons assigned in said suit the judgment herein appealed from is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 La. App. 365, 1928 La. App. LEXIS 525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buckley-v-c-r-i-p-ry-co-lactapp-1928.