Richland State Bank v. Mangham State Bank

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Richland State Bank v. Mangham State Bank

119 So. 47, 167 La. 276, 1928 La. LEXIS 2046

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedNovember 26, 1928

DocketNo. 28229.

StatusPublished

This text of 119 So. 47 (Richland State Bank v. Mangham State Bank) 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

Richland State Bank v. Mangham State Bank, 119 So. 47, 167 La. 276, 1928 La. LEXIS 2046 (La. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Under the provisions of Act 205 of 1912 the police jury of Richland parish advertised for bids for the deposit of all funds under its control for the two years beginning July 1, 1926, and ending July 1, 1928. The plaintiff and defendant submitted bids. The bid of the defendant was accepted, and it was declared the fiscal agent of the parish of Richland. Plaintiff sued to rescind this award, alleging several grounds therefor, and prayed for an injunction prohibiting the police jury and the defendant from entering into a fiscal agency contract for the parish of Richland. A rule to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be granted issued; the rule was tried; judgment was rendered thereon; and from the judgment the plaintiff appealed. Plaintiff now moves to dismiss its appeal, for *Page 277 the reason that the term of the contract expired July 1, 1928, and therefore the court is powerless to grant appellant any relief. There is no answer to the appeal, and the facts alleged in the motion are sustained by the record.

It is therefore ordered that this appeal be dismissed, at appellant's cost.

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

Under the provisions of Act 205 of 1912 the police jury of Richland parish advertised for bids for the deposit of all funds under its control for the two years beginning July 1, 1926, and ending July 1, 1928. The plaintiff and defendant submitted bids. The bid of the defendant was accepted, and it was declared the fiscal agent of the parish of Richland. Plaintiff sued to rescind this award, alleging several grounds therefor, and prayed for an injunction prohibiting the police jury and the defendant from entering into a fiscal agency contract for the parish of Richland. A rule to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be granted issued; the rule was tried; judgment was rendered thereon; and from the judgment the plaintiff appealed. Plaintiff now moves to dismiss its appeal, for *Page 277 the reason that the term of the contract expired July 1, 1928, and therefore the court is powerless to grant appellant any relief. There is no answer to the appeal, and the facts alleged in the motion are sustained by the record.

It is therefore ordered that this appeal be dismissed, at appellant's cost.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 So. 47, 167 La. 276, 1928 La. LEXIS 2046, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richland-state-bank-v-mangham-state-bank-la-1928.