Motor League of Louisiana v. Watson

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Motor League of Louisiana v. Watson

106 So. 312, 159 La. 808, 1925 La. LEXIS 2308

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedNovember 2, 1925

DocketNo. 27454.

StatusPublished

This text of 106 So. 312 (Motor League of Louisiana v. Watson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Motor League of Louisiana v. Watson, 106 So. 312, 159 La. 808, 1925 La. LEXIS 2308 (La. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

O’NIELL, C. J.

The relators pray for a writ of mandamus to compel the district judge to sign an ex parte order permitting them to withdraw certain powers of attorney that were filed in a lawsuit in which these relators were plaintiffs. When their attorneys presented the order to the judge and requested him to sign it, he declined to grant an ex parte order, but offered to issue a rule upon the defendants in the case, to show cause why the powers of attorney should not be withdrawn from the files. Relators’ attorneys, being not satisfied with the judge’s offer, immediately gave notice that they would apply for a writ of mandamus.

The relators were too hasty in declining the judge’s offer of a rule nisi, and in coming to us for relief. It is likely that the judge would have made the rule absolute, granting to relators the relief they sought. If he had declined to do so, there would have been ample time to, complain to us.

There was nothing arbitrary or harmful in the judge’s proposal to give notice to the defendants in the case and let them be heard.

The relief prayed for is denied at relators’ cost, reserving their right to renew their application to the district judge.-

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

O’NIELL, C. J.

The relators pray for a writ of mandamus to compel the district judge to sign an ex parte order permitting them to withdraw certain powers of attorney that were filed in a lawsuit in which these relators were plaintiffs. When their attorneys presented the order to the judge and requested him to sign it, he declined to grant an ex parte order, but offered to issue a rule upon the defendants in the case, to show cause why the powers of attorney should not be withdrawn from the files. Relators’ attorneys, being not satisfied with the judge’s offer, immediately gave notice that they would apply for a writ of mandamus.

The relators were too hasty in declining the judge’s offer of a rule nisi, and in coming to us for relief. It is likely that the judge would have made the rule absolute, granting to relators the relief they sought. If he had declined to do so, there would have been ample time to, complain to us.

There was nothing arbitrary or harmful in the judge’s proposal to give notice to the defendants in the case and let them be heard.

The relief prayed for is denied at relators’ cost, reserving their right to renew their application to the district judge.-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 So. 312, 159 La. 808, 1925 La. LEXIS 2308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/motor-league-of-louisiana-v-watson-la-1925.