Leonard Stirling v. Industrial Lumber

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Leonard Stirling v. Industrial Lumber

152 So. 917, 1934 La. App. LEXIS 547

DecidedMarch 6, 1934

StatusPublished

This text of 152 So. 917 (Leonard Stirling v. Industrial Lumber) 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

Leonard Stirling v. Industrial Lumber, 152 So. 917, 1934 La. App. LEXIS 547 (La. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this case, Industrial Lumber Company, Inc., has, by motion, called our attention to an error in which the judgment handed down herein on January 22, 1934, is inadvertently made to say in the last line of the decree: “Defendant, appellant is to pay the costs in both Courts,” when it was our intention to say that plaintiff, appellant, should bear the costs in both courts.

It is not necessary to grant a rehearing in order to make a correction of this kind.

. The decree is now corrected, and the word “plaintiff” is now substituted for the word “defendant” in the line and place mentioned.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this case, Industrial Lumber Company, Inc., has, by motion, called our attention to an error in which the judgment handed down herein on January 22, 1934, is inadvertently made to say in the last line of the decree: “Defendant, appellant is to pay the costs in both Courts,” when it was our intention to say that plaintiff, appellant, should bear the costs in both courts.

It is not necessary to grant a rehearing in order to make a correction of this kind.

. The decree is now corrected, and the word “plaintiff” is now substituted for the word “defendant” in the line and place mentioned.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 So. 917, 1934 La. App. LEXIS 547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leonard-stirling-v-industrial-lumber-lactapp-1934.