Gardsbane v. Horton

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Gardsbane v. Horton

56 So. 2d 859, 1952 La. App. LEXIS 471

Louisiana Court of Appeal·Decided January 30, 1952·No. No. 7786·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

HARDY, Judge.

This is an action by plaintiff as owner of a Hudson automobile for damages sustained to the said vehicle. This is a companion suit consolidated for trial and for purposes of appeal with the suit of Gardsbane v. Horton, La.App., 56 So.2d 858.

It is noted that in written reasons assigned in support of judgment by the District Judge he called attention to the fact that the record did not establish the capacity in which her son was operating her car. As a consequence the judgment entered was one of nonsuit, which we think was proper under the circumstances.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed at appellant’s cost.

McINNIS, Judge ad hoc, recused.

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

HARDY, Judge.

This is an action by plaintiff as owner of a Hudson automobile for damages sustained to the said vehicle. This is a companion suit consolidated for trial and for purposes of appeal with the suit of Gardsbane v. Horton, La.App., 56 So.2d 858.

It is noted that in written reasons assigned in support of judgment by the District Judge he called attention to the fact that the record did not establish the capacity in which her son was operating her car. As a consequence the judgment entered was one of nonsuit, which we think was proper under the circumstances.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed at appellant’s cost.

McINNIS, Judge ad hoc, recused.

Gardsbane v. Horton, 56 So. 2d 859, 1952 La. App. LEXIS 471 (La. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

56 So. 2d 859 (Gardsbane v. Horton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related