Legal Opinion
Crysel v. Texas & P. Ry. Co.
Louisiana Court of Appeal
Decided February 5, 1934No. 4696Published
1Opinion of the Court
MILLS, Judge.
Plaintiff brings this suit, claiming compensation under the provisions of our Workmen’s Compensation Act (No. 20 of 1914, as amended).
After the filing of answer he sought to amend by making additional allegations and by, in the alternative, claiming compensation under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (45 USCA §§ 51-59). An objection to the allowance of the amendment was sustained by the lower court.
Article 419 of the Code of Practice reads: ‘‘After issue joined, the plaintiff may, with the leave of the court, amend his original petition, provided the amendment does not alter…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- New York Central Railroad Company v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Pedersen v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. HarringtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Chicago & North Western Railway Co. v. BolleSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Lehigh Valley Railroad v. BarlowSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.