Williams v. Dave Lumber Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Williams v. Dave Lumber Co.

137 So. 610, 18 La. App. 421, 1931 La. App. LEXIS 337

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedNovember 18, 1931

DocketNo. 3751

StatusPublished

This text of 137 So. 610 (Williams v. Dave Lumber Co.) 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

Williams v. Dave Lumber Co., 137 So. 610, 18 La. App. 421, 1931 La. App. LEXIS 337 (La. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

DREW, J.

This case is a companion case to No. 3752, on the docket of this court, entitled J. H. McNeely v. Dave Lumber Company et al., 137 So. 607, decided this day. The two cases were consolidated for trial in this court. Although they were tried separately in the lower court, the evidence adduced in No. 3752 was by agreement used in this case. The pleadings raised the same issues, the same exceptions were filed, and the same ruling made by the lower court. The only difference in the two cases is that there are different plaintiffs and a difference in the amounts sued for. The account sued on is admitted to be correct, therefore, for the reasons assigned in No. 3752, on the docket of this court.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed, with costs.

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

DREW, J.

This case is a companion case to No. 3752, on the docket of this court, entitled J. H. McNeely v. Dave Lumber Company et al., 137 So. 607, decided this day. The two cases were consolidated for trial in this court. Although they were tried separately in the lower court, the evidence adduced in No. 3752 was by agreement used in this case. The pleadings raised the same issues, the same exceptions were filed, and the same ruling made by the lower court. The only difference in the two cases is that there are different plaintiffs and a difference in the amounts sued for. The account sued on is admitted to be correct, therefore, for the reasons assigned in No. 3752, on the docket of this court.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 So. 610, 18 La. App. 421, 1931 La. App. LEXIS 337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-dave-lumber-co-lactapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack