Victor v. Lewis

158 So. 25
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Victor v. Lewis. Read the opinion of the Court — 157 So. 293
Louisiana Court of Appeal·Decided December 10, 1934·No. No. 14959.·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Counsel criticizes our opinion in this case upon the ground that the case of Pruyn v. Gay, 159 La. 981, 106 So. 536, and not Heeb v. Codifer & Bonnabel, 162 La. 139, 110 So. 178, should control in the situation presented by the facts of this case.

After a careful re-examination of both authorities, we are confirmed in our opinion that the present case is much nearer the Heeb Case, the later case, and believe that case to be determinative of the issue presented on the question of the forfeiture of the installments paid by the plaintiff, which is the part of our opinion to which counsel mainly directs his criticism.

The application for the rehearing is therefore refused.

Rehearing refused.

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

Victor v. Lewis, 158 So. 25 (La. Ct. App. 1934).

158 So. 25 (Victor v. Lewis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Heeb v. Codifer & Bonnabel, Inc.
110 So. 178 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1926)
Pruyn v. Gay
106 So. 536 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1925)