Buster & Son v. Langhof

125 So. 158, 13 La. App. 6, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 823
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedDecember 16, 1929
DocketNo. 13,130
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 125 So. 158 (Buster & Son v. Langhof) 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
Buster & Son v. Langhof, 125 So. 158, 13 La. App. 6, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 823 (La. Ct. App. 1929).

Opinion

JANVIER, J.

This matter comes before us on appeal from a judgment of the First City Court of New Orleans, rendered against defendant after the overruling of [7]*7liis plea to the jurisdiction ratione personae.

Defendant was sued as a resident of the City of New Orleans. In his plea to the jurisdiction he alleged that he was a “resident and voter in the Parish of Jefferson.”

The only evidence on the question of fact involved was given by defendant himself. He testified that for more than five years he had lived in the Parish of Jefferson but had conducted business in the City of New Orleans. There is no doubt that under the law of this state the general rule is that a resident of the state must be sued in the parish 'in which he resides and our attention has been directed to no decisions to the contrary. Nor are we told of any exception which is applicable to the facts of this case.

Counsel for plaintiff contends, however, that inasmuch as he was acting in good faith in bringing suit in this parish and inasmuch as on the merits no serious defense was, set up, it .would work a hardship o,n his client to have to pay the costs of court. This may be true, but in order to so hold, even if we had the right to do so, we would have to investigate the facts which, since we believe that the plea to the jurisdiction should have been sustained, are not properly before us.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment appealed from be and it is annulled, avoided and reversed and that there now be judgment in favor of defendant and against plaintiff dismissing this suit.

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

Related

Guidry v. Savoie
194 So. 3d 1184 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2016)
Richard v. Hawthrone
192 So. 3d 273 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2016)
George v. Dugas
188 So. 3d 376 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2016)
State v. Ussin
182 So. 3d 1226 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2015)
State v. Runnels
182 So. 3d 1245 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2015)
Succession of Sylvester
181 So. 3d 250 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2015)
State v. Reeder
189 So. 3d 401 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
125 So. 158, 13 La. App. 6, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buster-son-v-langhof-lactapp-1929.