Reed v. Feazel

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Reed v. Feazel

10 So. 2d 699, 201 La. 912, 1942 La. LEXIS 1373

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedNovember 4, 1942

DocketNo. 36406.

StatusPublished

This text of 10 So. 2d 699 (Reed v. Feazel) 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

Reed v. Feazel, 10 So. 2d 699, 201 La. 912, 1942 La. LEXIS 1373 (La. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

ODOM, Justice.

The issues involved in this case are identical with those involved in the case of W. Redrick Fogle, Jr., V. William C. Feazel, No. 36,405, 10 So. 695, this day decided. The lease contracts involved are identical except as to the land covered by the lease. In this case, as in the Fogle case, plaintiff introduced and filed in evidence the lease contract, a demand made on defendant to perform, and tlie testimony of Mr. Wray as to the cost of drilling, the well. In this *913 case, as in the Fogle case, plaintiff’s demands were rejected, and he appealed. It is not necessary, therefore, that we write an opinion in this case.

For the reasons assigned in the Fogle case, the judgment appealed from is affirmed at plaintiff’s costs.

FOURNET, J., concurs in the decree. ROGERS, J., absent.

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

ODOM, Justice.

The issues involved in this case are identical with those involved in the case of W. Redrick Fogle, Jr., V. William C. Feazel, No. 36,405, 10 So. 695, this day decided. The lease contracts involved are identical except as to the land covered by the lease. In this case, as in the Fogle case, plaintiff introduced and filed in evidence the lease contract, a demand made on defendant to perform, and tlie testimony of Mr. Wray as to the cost of drilling, the well. In this *913 case, as in the Fogle case, plaintiff’s demands were rejected, and he appealed. It is not necessary, therefore, that we write an opinion in this case.

For the reasons assigned in the Fogle case, the judgment appealed from is affirmed at plaintiff’s costs.

FOURNET, J., concurs in the decree. ROGERS, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 So. 2d 699, 201 La. 912, 1942 La. LEXIS 1373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reed-v-feazel-la-1942.