TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hauch v. E. C. Drew Inv. Co.

Hauch v. E. C. Drew Inv. Co., 40 So. 847 (La. 1906)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Louisiana · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 26, 1906
Docket
No. 15,812
Judges
Monroe
Citations
40 So. 847116 La. 4881906 La. LEXIS 519
Disposition
Dismissed.
Syllabus
Appeal—Dismissal. Where a judgment maintaining an exception of no cause of action is rendered, and the suit dismissed, an appeal is premature until the judgment has been signed, and will be dismissed. [Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 2, Cent. Dig. Appeal and Error, § 1877.] (Syllabus by the Court.)
Summary
Appeal from Sixth Judicial District Court, Parish of Onaehita; Luther Egbert Hall, Judge. Action by Arthur Haueh against the E. C. Drew Investment Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Monroe

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

MONROE, J.

This is a suit for the recovery of damages alleged to have arisen ex contractu, which was dismissed upon an exception of no cause of action. It appears, however, that the judgment from which the plaintiff has attempted to appeal was not signed, and the appellee moves to dismiss the appeal on that ground. The motion must be sustained. To quote the language of this court, in a case heretofore decided:

“The effect of the decree of the district court, sustaining the exception of no cause of action, is necessarily in the nature of a final judgment, and has the effect of terminating the litigation upon the issue stated. In other words, *490 the same suit could not be renewed and another judgment provoked on the same cause of action. Such being the case, * * * the appeal is necessarily premature.” Nicholls v. Maddox, 52 La. Ann. 496 , 26 South. 994 .

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the appeal herein be dismissed, at the cost of the appellant.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →
1909: 11918: 11919: 11923: 11925: 21927: 11931: 11938: 11940: 11955: 11959: 119092026peak 1925 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. James v. St. Charles Hotel Co.83 So. 222 (La. 1919)
  2. River & Rails Terminals, Inc. v. Louisiana Ry. & Nav. Co.103 So. 331 (La. 1925)
  3. Succession of Savoie196 So. 923 (La. 1940)
  4. Mitchell v. Shreveport Creosoting Co.49 So. 655 (La. 1909)
  5. Mossler Acceptance Co. v. Moliere181 So. 228 (La. Ct. App. 1938)
  6. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Callicott83 So. 2d 671 (La. Ct. App. 1955)

Most recent

  1. State ex rel. Poche v. Police Jury of St. James Parish109 So. 2d 83 (La. 1959)
  2. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Callicott83 So. 2d 671 (La. Ct. App. 1955)
  3. Succession of Savoie196 So. 923 (La. 1940)
  4. Mossler Acceptance Co. v. Moliere181 So. 228 (La. Ct. App. 1938)
  5. Depetro v. Mitchner134 So. 273 (La. Ct. App. 1931)
  6. Adler & Co. v. Moses5 La. App. 601 (1927)

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
Nicholls v. Maddox, 52 La. Ann. 496 (1900) 16

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