Vicknair v. Southside Plantation Co.

10 Teiss. 43, 1913 La. App. LEXIS 6
Louisiana Court of Appeal·Decided February 24, 1913·No. No. 5629·Published

Opinions

His Honor,

JOHN ST. PAUL,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

Plaintiff claimed a balance due him for salary, alleging a contract of employment for a year and a discharge without cause before the end of the term.

Defendant filed an exception of “no cause of.action” based upon the omission of some alleged essential averment touching the contract; and pending action on this [44]*44exception plaintiff tendered and the Court allowed an amendment supplying the alleged omission.

We think the amendment was properly allowed. Amendments supplying mere omissions in pleadings may ;be allowed at any time before final'judgment on exceptions aimed thereat.

Reuther vs. Kansas City Milling Co., 2 Orleans Ct. of Appeal, 389.

Such amendments are clearly in furtherance of justice, since judgments based on exceptions of that nature constitute mere non-suits (8 Orleans Ct. App., 392), and do not end the controversy (119 La., 1064), which may always be renewed with the missing allegations supplied (47 An., 109).

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

Vicknair v. Southside Plantation Co., 10 Teiss. 43, 1913 La. App. LEXIS 6 (La. Ct. App. 1913).

10 Teiss. 43 (Vicknair v. Southside Plantation Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Railway Co. v. McCarthy
96 U.S. 258 (Supreme Court, 1878)
Succession of Herber
44 So. 888 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1907)