Dyson v. Gano

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Dyson v. Gano

127 So. 411, 13 La. App. 358, 1930 La. App. LEXIS 553

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedApril 7, 1930

DocketNo. 11,906

StatusPublished

This text of 127 So. 411 (Dyson v. Gano) 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

Dyson v. Gano, 127 So. 411, 13 La. App. 358, 1930 La. App. LEXIS 553 (La. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

JANVIER, J.

Plaintiff sues for compensation.

Defendant, Gano, makes no defense to plaintiff’s suit, but attempts to call United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company in warranty, alleging that that company had issued a policy of workmen’s compensation insurance to one A. H. Alvis, and that, when Gano bought from Alvis the gravel pit in which plaintiff was injured, he (Gano) intended to -buy, and thought he had bought, Alvis’ interest in the policy in question, and that, therefore, the company should indemnify him against such loss as he may sustain as a result of this suit.

We see no allegation in the petitioh which, even if proven, would justify a judgment against defendant in warranty, and therefore feel that the judgment maintaining the exception was correct.

There is manifestly no error in the judgment in favor of plaintiff and against the main defendant.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment appealed from be, and it is, affirmed, at the cost of appellant.

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

JANVIER, J.

Plaintiff sues for compensation.

Defendant, Gano, makes no defense to plaintiff’s suit, but attempts to call United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company in warranty, alleging that that company had issued a policy of workmen’s compensation insurance to one A. H. Alvis, and that, when Gano bought from Alvis the gravel pit in which plaintiff was injured, he (Gano) intended to -buy, and thought he had bought, Alvis’ interest in the policy in question, and that, therefore, the company should indemnify him against such loss as he may sustain as a result of this suit.

We see no allegation in the petitioh which, even if proven, would justify a judgment against defendant in warranty, and therefore feel that the judgment maintaining the exception was correct.

There is manifestly no error in the judgment in favor of plaintiff and against the main defendant.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment appealed from be, and it is, affirmed, at the cost of appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 So. 411, 13 La. App. 358, 1930 La. App. LEXIS 553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dyson-v-gano-lactapp-1930.