Victory Oil Co. v. Perret

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Victory Oil Co. v. Perret

151 So. 2d 565, 1963 La. App. LEXIS 1484

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedApril 1, 1963

DocketNo. 1001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 151 So. 2d 565 (Victory Oil Co. v. Perret) 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

Victory Oil Co. v. Perret, 151 So. 2d 565, 1963 La. App. LEXIS 1484 (La. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

McBRIDE, Judge.

Plaintiff filed this suit to recover a balance due on open account, and defendants-have answered and pleaded in reconvention a demand against plaintiff. Plaintiff, as defendant in reconvention, then made two corporations its third party defendants.. The third party defendants interposed an exception of prescription of one year to-the reconventional demand and also as to-the third party demand against them. The-lower court rendered a formal judgment which refers the plea of prescription to the-merits, and defendants took an appeal therefrom which is met by a motion to dismiss-filed by plaintiff on the assigned ground' that the judgment is merely interlocutory and can cause no irreparable injury to defendants and it is, therefore, unappealable.

The judgment is an interlocutory-one. See Dart’s New La.Dig. Vol. 2, p. 154, § 130. An appeal may be taken from, an interlocutory judgment which may cause irreparable injury. LSA-C.C.P. art. 2083..

We cannot conceive how the judgment can cause defendants any injury, irreparable or otherwise. The exception was not passed upon by the court and the rights of appellants have neither been jeopardized nor prejudiced.

Appellants state that their appeal’ was prompted by certain statements made in the reasons for judgment of which they complain, but we are not concerned at this-point with why the judge saw fit to defer passing on the exception until the merits of the case were heard. The law is plain that reasons for judgment form no part of' the judgment itself. Morgan’s Louisiana & T. R. & S. S. Co. v. John T. Moore Planting Co., Limited, 130 La. 78, 57 So. 635.

The judgment before us not being one-from which an appeal may be taken, therefore the motion is maintained and the appeal is dismissed.

Motion maintained; appeal dismissed.

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

McBRIDE, Judge.

Plaintiff filed this suit to recover a balance due on open account, and defendants-have answered and pleaded in reconvention a demand against plaintiff. Plaintiff, as defendant in reconvention, then made two corporations its third party defendants.. The third party defendants interposed an exception of prescription of one year to-the reconventional demand and also as to-the third party demand against them. The-lower court rendered a formal judgment which refers the plea of prescription to the-merits, and defendants took an appeal therefrom which is met by a motion to dismiss-filed by plaintiff on the assigned ground' that the judgment is merely interlocutory and can cause no irreparable injury to defendants and it is, therefore, unappealable.

The judgment is an interlocutory-one. See Dart’s New La.Dig. Vol. 2, p. 154, § 130. An appeal may be taken from, an interlocutory judgment which may cause irreparable injury. LSA-C.C.P. art. 2083..

We cannot conceive how the judgment can cause defendants any injury, irreparable or otherwise. The exception was not passed upon by the court and the rights of appellants have neither been jeopardized nor prejudiced.

Appellants state that their appeal’ was prompted by certain statements made in the reasons for judgment of which they complain, but we are not concerned at this-point with why the judge saw fit to defer passing on the exception until the merits of the case were heard. The law is plain that reasons for judgment form no part of' the judgment itself. Morgan’s Louisiana & T. R. & S. S. Co. v. John T. Moore Planting Co., Limited, 130 La. 78, 57 So. 635.

The judgment before us not being one-from which an appeal may be taken, therefore the motion is maintained and the appeal is dismissed.

Motion maintained; appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 So. 2d 565, 1963 La. App. LEXIS 1484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/victory-oil-co-v-perret-lactapp-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack