Legal Opinion
Orange Rice Milling Co. v. Hope Rice Mill
Louisiana Court of Appeal
Decided July 1, 1966No. 1718PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
TATE, Judge.
The plaintiff holder presented two negotiable warehouse receipts to the defendant warehouseman, but the warehouseman delivered some 100,000 pounds of rough rice less than the two million-odd pounds described by the receipts held by the plaintiff. The present is a suit for value of the deficiency not delivered. The defendant warehouseman appeals from judgment in favor of the plaintiff holder.
Consolidated with the present for trial and appeal are three other companion suits involving for the most part identical issues: Edmundson-Duhe Rice Mill v. Hope Rice Mill, 189 So.2d 70;…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- National Union Bank v. ShearerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Jeter v. LachleLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1958
- Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. RednourLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1950
- McDonald v. BadieLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1940
- State Bank v. WaterhouseSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1897
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- LOUISIANA B. & T. CO., CROWLEY v. Roanoke Rice Co-Op.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1974
- Edmundson-Duhe Rice Mill v. Hope Rice MillLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1966
- Estherwood Rice Mill, Inc. v. Hope Rice MillLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1966
- Farmers Rice Milling Co. v. Hope Rice MillLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1966
- Orange Rice Milling Co. v. Hope Rice MillSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1966