Reed v. Boagni

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Reed v. Boagni

146 So. 505

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 7, 1933

DocketNo. 1094.

StatusPublished

This text of 146 So. 505 (Reed v. Boagni) 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

Reed v. Boagni, 146 So. 505 (La. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

ELLIOTT, Judge.

In this case both plaintiff and defendant, appellant and appellee, applied for and were granted a rehearing.

The plaintiff complains that she was not allowed to recover the sum of $277.08 as an overpayment of interest on her notes.

The defendant complains of the judgment because we have condemned him to return to the plaintiff $31.36.

We have reconsidered the subject-matter of both complaints, and authorities adduced in support of same, and we now feel satisfied that our first opinion and decree herein is correct and does justice to both parties. Any further remarks would serve no useful purpose and would just be -an elaboration of what is contained in our original opinion.

For these reasons our former opinion and decree herein is now reinstated, and made the final judgment of this court.

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

ELLIOTT, Judge.

In this case both plaintiff and defendant, appellant and appellee, applied for and were granted a rehearing.

The plaintiff complains that she was not allowed to recover the sum of $277.08 as an overpayment of interest on her notes.

The defendant complains of the judgment because we have condemned him to return to the plaintiff $31.36.

We have reconsidered the subject-matter of both complaints, and authorities adduced in support of same, and we now feel satisfied that our first opinion and decree herein is correct and does justice to both parties. Any further remarks would serve no useful purpose and would just be -an elaboration of what is contained in our original opinion.

For these reasons our former opinion and decree herein is now reinstated, and made the final judgment of this court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 So. 505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reed-v-boagni-lactapp-1933.