TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Bieber v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.

Rheinhard BIEBER, and v. NEW AMSTERDAM CASUALTY COMPANY, and

Bieber v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co., 161 So. 2d 136 (La. Ct. App. 1964)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Louisiana Court of Appeal · State Appellate Courts
Decided
February 18, 1964
Docket
No. 1052
Judges
Fruge, Hood, Savoy, Tate
Citations
161 So. 2d 1361964 La. App. LEXIS 1355

Opinion of the Court — Hood

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

HOOD, Judge.

This is a companion suit to the cases of Loewer v. Duplechin et al., 161 So.2d 124 , and Bieber v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company et al., 161 So.2d 136 , all of which suits arose out of similar but separate contracts which were entered .into by plaintiffs, on the one hand, and by defendant Frank J. Duplechin, on the other, and all of which suits 'are being decided by us on this date. In the instant suit judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff and against both defendants, in solido, for the amount claimed, and judgment further was rendered for the same amount in favor of third party plaintiff, New Amsterdam, and against the third party defendant, Duplechin. One of the original defendants, New Amsterdam, has appealed.

All of the issues presented in this suit were considered and determined in the case of Loewer v. F. Duplechin et al., supra. For the reasons assigned in that case, the judgment appealed from in the instant, suit is reversed insofar as it (1) condemns defendant, New Amsterdam Casualty Company, to pay a sum of money, with interest and costs,, to plaintiff, and (2) condemns the third party defendant, Frank J. Du-plechin, to pay the same amount to the third party plaintiff,.New Amsterdam Casualty Company. In all other respects the judgment appealed from is affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed to plaintiff-appellee.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Dissent — Tate

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

TATE, Judge

(dissenting).

This is a companion suit to Loewer v. Duplechin, 161 So.2d 124 . The writer dissents from the reversal of the trial court herein, for the reasons stated in his dissent in such companion suit.

On Rehearing

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

On Application for Rehearing.

En Banc. Rehearing denied.

TATE, J., dissents. FRUGE, J., votes for rehearing.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1964: 219642026peak 1964 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Loewer v. Duplechin161 So. 2d 124 (La. Ct. App. 1964)
  2. Loewer v. Duplechin163 So. 2d 358 (La. 1964)

Most recent

  1. Loewer v. Duplechin163 So. 2d 358 (La. 1964)
  2. Loewer v. Duplechin161 So. 2d 124 (La. Ct. App. 1964)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Loewer v. Duplechin, 161 So. 2d 124 (La. Ct. App. 1964) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list