McClintic-Marshall Co. v. Ibos

Fifth Circuit

McClintic-Marshall Co. v. Ibos

232 F. 1021, 146 C.C.A. 666, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 1911

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 17, 1916

DocketNo. 2898

StatusPublished

This text of 232 F. 1021 (McClintic-Marshall Co. v. Ibos) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McClintic-Marshall Co. v. Ibos, 232 F. 1021, 146 C.C.A. 666, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 1911 (5th Cir. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Assuming that under the Louisiana practice, in a suit for damages for a tort, the defendant may have a right to a call in warranty (see Muntz v. Algiers Ry. Co., 114 La. 438, 38 South. 410), we are of opinion (1) that the motion to dismiss the writ should be overruled; and (2) that on the case made by the call in warranty against John B. O’Leary the exception of no cause of action was well taken and the call properly dismissed. This leads to an affirmance of the judgment of the trial court. However, in order that the plaintiff in error may not be prejudiced hereafter in asserting any-[1022]*1022rights that may have grown out of the correspondence referred to in the call in warranty, we think the judgment of the trial court should be amended by adding to the same “without prejudice,” and, as so amended, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

Assuming that under the Louisiana practice, in a suit for damages for a tort, the defendant may have a right to a call in warranty (see Muntz v. Algiers Ry. Co., 114 La. 438, 38 South. 410), we are of opinion (1) that the motion to dismiss the writ should be overruled; and (2) that on the case made by the call in warranty against John B. O’Leary the exception of no cause of action was well taken and the call properly dismissed. This leads to an affirmance of the judgment of the trial court. However, in order that the plaintiff in error may not be prejudiced hereafter in asserting any-[1022]*1022rights that may have grown out of the correspondence referred to in the call in warranty, we think the judgment of the trial court should be amended by adding to the same “without prejudice,” and, as so amended, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 F. 1021, 146 C.C.A. 666, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 1911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcclintic-marshall-co-v-ibos-ca5-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack