Harris v. Monroe Building & Loan Ass'n

169 So. 343, 185 La. 289, 1935 La. LEXIS 1814
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedApril 29, 1935
DocketNo. 33086.
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 169 So. 343 (Harris v. Monroe Building & Loan Ass'n) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Harris v. Monroe Building & Loan Ass'n, 169 So. 343, 185 La. 289, 1935 La. LEXIS 1814 (La. 1935).

Opinions

HIGGINS, Justice.

We granted a writ of certiorari in this case on the application of the Monroe Building & Loan Association, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of this state, in order to review the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, which reversed the decision of the district court and held that sections 55 and 76 of Act No. 140 of the Legislature of 1932 (generally known as the Louisiana Building Association Act) were unconstitutional. 154 So. 503.

Since granting the writ we had occasion to consider the question of the constitutionality of section 55. In the case of Treigle v. Acme Homestead Ass’n, 181 La. 941, 160 So. 637, 98 A.L.R. 69, we held that it was constitutional on the ground that building and loan associations are created and authorized, under the laws of this state, to engage in a quasi-public business and are, therefore, subject to reasonable regulation from time to time by the state through the Legislature; and that there was no impairment of a vested right or contractual right of the owner of full-paid shares of dividend stock, because the provisions of this section were reasonable and not arbitrary or discriminatory. All of the contentions made in the instant case were also urged in the above-cited case, which is decisive of all issues here presented with reference to section 55. It is conceded by the plaintiff that if section 55 of the act is held to be constitutional that her suit should be dismissed. It is therefore unnecessary to consider whether or not section 76 of the statute providing for a ninety day prescriptive period is constitutional.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is annulled, and plaintiff’s suit is dismissed, at her cost.

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

Related

Darby v. Gilbert Richard, Inc.
838 So. 2d 141 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2003)
Manville v. Citizen
689 So. 2d 578 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1997)
Bustamente v. JEFFERSON PARISH INSP.
683 So. 2d 822 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1996)
Quiett v. Estate of Moore
378 So. 2d 362 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1980)
Collins v. DIVISION OF FOSTER CARE, ETC.
377 So. 2d 1266 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1979)
Gathright v. Smith
352 So. 2d 282 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1977)
State v. Wright
305 So. 2d 406 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1974)
Summerell v. Phillips
247 So. 2d 542 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1971)
Louisiana Gas Service Co. v. Louisiana Public Service Commission
162 So. 2d 555 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
169 So. 343, 185 La. 289, 1935 La. LEXIS 1814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-monroe-building-loan-assn-la-1935.