Cloud v. Industrial Lbr. Co.

135 So. 377, 17 La. App. 592, 1931 La. App. LEXIS 196
Louisiana Court of Appeal·Decided May 5, 1931·No. No. 804·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

MOUTON, J.

In this case counsel for appellant has made no appearance by brief or oral argument to point out any grounds of complaint. In such cases the judgment of the district court will be affirmed on the presumption of its correctness where it is apparently sustained by the record. Traders Securities Co. v. Heartfield Allen Drug Co., 8 La. App. 518; Succession of Suner, 5 La. App. 121; Schwan v. Peterman, 123 La. 726, 49 So. 486; Saenger-Ehrlich Enterprise, Inc., v. Stephens, 10 La. App. 188, 120 So. 778.

In this case, which presents questions of fact, we have, however, gone carefully over the evidence and find that the written opinion of the district judge is fully supported by the record, and have discovered no error to warrant a reversal.

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

Cloud v. Industrial Lbr. Co., 135 So. 377, 17 La. App. 592, 1931 La. App. LEXIS 196 (La. Ct. App. 1931).

135 So. 377 (Cloud v. Industrial Lbr. Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Nelson v. Kinnebrew
140 So. 139 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1932)