Loprestie v. Roy Motors, Inc.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Loprestie v. Roy Motors, Inc.

181 So. 60, 1938 La. App. LEXIS 221

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 5, 1938

DocketNo. 1842.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 181 So. 60 (Loprestie v. Roy Motors, Inc.) 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

Loprestie v. Roy Motors, Inc., 181 So. 60, 1938 La. App. LEXIS 221 (La. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

*61 LE BLANC, Judge.

This is a companion suit to that of William Morris v. Roy Motors, Inc., et al., 181 So. 57, in which an opinion and decree were this day handed down by the court.

In this suit, the plaintiff, Mrs. Sarah Loprestie, wife of William Morris, seeks to recover judgment in her own behalf against the same defendants for personal injuries sustained by her as a result of the same accident, in the sum of $2,500. The allegations made in her petition with regard to the happening of the accident are the same as those made in the other suit and the same exception was filed on behalf of the defendants and maintained by the district judge. As in the other suit, judgment was rendered rejecting the plaintiff’s demand at her costs, and she appealed.

For the same reasons as were stated in the opinion handed down in the suit of William Morris v. the same defendants, supra, it is now ordered that the judgment appealed from in this case be affirmed at the costs of the appellant.

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

*61 LE BLANC, Judge.

This is a companion suit to that of William Morris v. Roy Motors, Inc., et al., 181 So. 57, in which an opinion and decree were this day handed down by the court.

In this suit, the plaintiff, Mrs. Sarah Loprestie, wife of William Morris, seeks to recover judgment in her own behalf against the same defendants for personal injuries sustained by her as a result of the same accident, in the sum of $2,500. The allegations made in her petition with regard to the happening of the accident are the same as those made in the other suit and the same exception was filed on behalf of the defendants and maintained by the district judge. As in the other suit, judgment was rendered rejecting the plaintiff’s demand at her costs, and she appealed.

For the same reasons as were stated in the opinion handed down in the suit of William Morris v. the same defendants, supra, it is now ordered that the judgment appealed from in this case be affirmed at the costs of the appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 So. 60, 1938 La. App. LEXIS 221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loprestie-v-roy-motors-inc-lactapp-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack