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

Louisiana Court of Appeal·Decided April 5, 1929·No. No. 2630·Published

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.)

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

Pincite

121 So. 263 (Jeter Paint Store v. Singlust) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related