Jeter Paint Store v. Singlust

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Jeter Paint Store v. Singlust

121 So. 263, 10 La. App. 452, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 75

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedApril 5, 1929

DocketNo. 2630

StatusPublished

This text of 121 So. 263 (Jeter Paint Store v. Singlust) 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

Jeter Paint Store v. Singlust, 121 So. 263, 10 La. App. 452, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 75 (La. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

WEBB, J.

Plaintiff, John T. Jeter, doing business under the name of Jeter Paint Store, instituted this action against J. Lott and C. C. Hill, contractors, and Mrs. P. A. Singlust, to recover judgment against them in solido for material alleged to have been furnished to the contractors and used by them in painting a building owned by Mrs. Singlust, and for recognition of an alleged privilege on the building and lot, and plaintiff appeals from a judgment rejecting his demands as against Mrs. Sing-lust.

Appellant has not made any appearance in support of the appeal, and we assume that he has abandoned his appeal, as it appears from a review of the record that the plaintiff failed to established that the material was furnished to the contractors to be used in painting the building of Mrs. Singlust or that it was actually so used.

The judgment is affirmed. (Guy et al. vs. McDuffie, 123 La. 641, 49 So. 222; Quilter vs. Kearns, 135 La. 807, 66 So. 229; Bryceland Lumber Co. vs. Kerlin, 140 La. 867, 74 So. 177.)

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

WEBB, J.

Plaintiff, John T. Jeter, doing business under the name of Jeter Paint Store, instituted this action against J. Lott and C. C. Hill, contractors, and Mrs. P. A. Singlust, to recover judgment against them in solido for material alleged to have been furnished to the contractors and used by them in painting a building owned by Mrs. Singlust, and for recognition of an alleged privilege on the building and lot, and plaintiff appeals from a judgment rejecting his demands as against Mrs. Sing-lust.

Appellant has not made any appearance in support of the appeal, and we assume that he has abandoned his appeal, as it appears from a review of the record that the plaintiff failed to established that the material was furnished to the contractors to be used in painting the building of Mrs. Singlust or that it was actually so used.

The judgment is affirmed. (Guy et al. vs. McDuffie, 123 La. 641, 49 So. 222; Quilter vs. Kearns, 135 La. 807, 66 So. 229; Bryceland Lumber Co. vs. Kerlin, 140 La. 867, 74 So. 177.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 So. 263, 10 La. App. 452, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 75, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jeter-paint-store-v-singlust-lactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack