Garland v. Holmes
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL from the Commercial Court of New Orleans, Watts, J. contended that the maxim, Contra non va-lentem &c., cannot apply to the plaintiff’s case, as he might have caused a curator ad hoc to be appointed and have sued. Civil Code, art. 57. C. P. art. 116. 12 La. 606. 6 Rob. 147, 534. 15 La. 145. 19 La. 262. 1 Peters, 360.
1Opinion
Same Case—Application for a Re-hearing.
The judgment on the application for a re-hearing was delivered by
Rost, J.
The counsel for the defendant, in support of their application for a re-hearing, have favored us with a printed argument, in which they have attempted to show numerous errors in the judgment and opinion of the court. It is necessaiy to a proper understanding of the grounds upon which they rely, to revert to the facts of the case, and to the points made before us in the argument.
This was an action in which a citizen of Louisiana claimed from an absentee a sum of money, for services…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Tyson v. M'GillSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1840
- Guilliet v. ErwinSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1835
- Halsey v. CarterThe Superior Court of New York City · 1866