TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Harris v. Louisiana State Normal College

Harris v. La. State Normal Coll., 138 So. 182 (La. Ct. App. 1931)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Louisiana Court of Appeal · State Appellate Courts
Decided
December 9, 1931
Docket
No. 3976
Judges
Stephens
Citations
138 So. 18218 La. App. 270

Opinion of the Court — Stephens

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

STEPHENS, J.

After further consideration of this case on rehearing, we are of the opinion that we were in error in holding that the judgment against the Southern Casualty Company should he reversed, for the reason that the district judge allowed amended petitions to be filed and the suit continued in effect against said company after having sustained two exceptions of no cause of action in its behalf. The judgments sustaining the exceptions and dismissing the suits were not signed and the correctness of the rulings of the trial judge in these respects are not properly reviewable by this court. However, the decree in our original opinion is not affected thereby, as clearly no judgment can be rendered against the Southern Casualty Company.

We held in the original opinion, and we think correctly, that the defendant the Louisiana State Normal College was not an incorporated public board, body, commission, or institution authorized by the laws of the state to hold property, or sue and be sued. Section 1 of Act No. 20 of 1914 therefore does not apply to the Louisiana State Normal College. As an action will not lie in favor of plaintiff and against the college, it necessarily follows that an action cannot be maintained in favor of plaintiff and against the insurer, the Southern Casualty Company.

It is therefore ordered that the decree with the reservations therein contained in our -original opinion be reinstated and made the .final judgment of this court.

How later courts describe this case

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

1934: 11936: 21940: 11943: 119342026peak 1936 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Reeves v. Globe Indemnity Co. of New York168 So. 488 (La. 1936)
  2. Humphrey v. Poss15 So. 2d 732 (Ala. 1943)
  3. Tuck v. Harmon151 So. 806 (La. Ct. App. 1934)
  4. Burglass v. Burglass193 So. 275 (La. Ct. App. 1940)
  5. Stephenson v. List Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Inc.168 So. 317 (La. Ct. App. 1936)

Most recent

  1. Humphrey v. Poss15 So. 2d 732 (Ala. 1943)
  2. Burglass v. Burglass193 So. 275 (La. Ct. App. 1940)
  3. Stephenson v. List Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Inc.168 So. 317 (La. Ct. App. 1936)
  4. Reeves v. Globe Indemnity Co. of New York168 So. 488 (La. 1936)
  5. Tuck v. Harmon151 So. 806 (La. Ct. App. 1934)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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