Tear v. Chambers

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Tear v. Chambers

2 La. Ann. 870

DecidedSeptember 15, 1847

StatusPublished

This text of 2 La. Ann. 870 (Tear v. Chambers) 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

Tear v. Chambers, 2 La. Ann. 870 (La. 1847).

Pincite

Opinion

The judgment of the court was pronounced by

Eustis, C. J.

This case does not differ from that we have just decided. The suit is for the recovery of.another portion o'f the land granted to the Tears., and the title of the defendant and'his possession is that of the defendants in the other case. As we have the whole evidence before ¡us,-it becomes unnecessary to decide on the bills of exception.

There was judgment for the plaintiff, and we have'been called upon to change the judgment against the warrantors, and allow $1,000 for the fruits and revenues, and $200 for counsel fees. Under the evidence we do not feel ourselves authorised in making any change in the judgment. We should not have allowed interest from the institution of the suit, but the warrantors have not asked that the judgment be altered in the court 'below nor in this court. Grailhe v. Hown, 1 Ann. Rep. 140. Judgment affirmed.

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

The judgment of the court was pronounced by

Eustis, C. J.

This case does not differ from that we have just decided. The suit is for the recovery of.another portion o'f the land granted to the Tears., and the title of the defendant and'his possession is that of the defendants in the other case. As we have the whole evidence before ¡us,-it becomes unnecessary to decide on the bills of exception.

There was judgment for the plaintiff, and we have'been called upon to change the judgment against the warrantors, and allow $1,000 for the fruits and revenues, and $200 for counsel fees. Under the evidence we do not feel ourselves authorised in making any change in the judgment. We should not have allowed interest from the institution of the suit, but the warrantors have not asked that the judgment be altered in the court 'below nor in this court. Grailhe v. Hown, 1 Ann. Rep. 140. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 La. Ann. 870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tear-v-chambers-la-1847.