Romain v. Fisher

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Romain v. Fisher

120 So. 407, 10 La. App. 63, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 422

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 11, 1929

DocketNo. 11,339

StatusPublished

This text of 120 So. 407 (Romain v. Fisher) 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

Romain v. Fisher, 120 So. 407, 10 La. App. 63, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 422 (La. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

JANVIER, J.

This is a suit on a promissory note. Defendant’s actions indicate that he has no serious defense.

In the court below judgment was rendered by default. Defendant obtained a new trial which, in our. opinion, should not have been granted, but which, however, the trial judge allowed him. After the granting of the new trial, defendant filed answer, but did not appear for trial and again judgment went against him. Again he asked for a new trial, which this time was refused. He has filed no brief with us. His tactics appear to be prompted by a desire for delay, and his appeal is utterly without merit and frivolous.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment appealed from be amended by allowing plaintiff damages at 10 per cent on the amount of the judgment appealed from and, as thus amended, affirmed at the cost of appellant.

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

JANVIER, J.

This is a suit on a promissory note. Defendant’s actions indicate that he has no serious defense.

In the court below judgment was rendered by default. Defendant obtained a new trial which, in our. opinion, should not have been granted, but which, however, the trial judge allowed him. After the granting of the new trial, defendant filed answer, but did not appear for trial and again judgment went against him. Again he asked for a new trial, which this time was refused. He has filed no brief with us. His tactics appear to be prompted by a desire for delay, and his appeal is utterly without merit and frivolous.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment appealed from be amended by allowing plaintiff damages at 10 per cent on the amount of the judgment appealed from and, as thus amended, affirmed at the cost of appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 So. 407, 10 La. App. 63, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 422, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/romain-v-fisher-lactapp-1929.