Legal Opinion
Casey v. Allain
Louisiana Court of Appeal
Decided February 11, 1929No. 10,600PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJones, J.
Originally, the claims of several materialmen were involved in this concursus proceeding, but they have all been settled except that of the Brandin Slate Company, Inc., for $299.50, interest and costs.
Casey, the owner, who admits that he failed to have the contract and bond recorded in the mortgage office, as required by Act 139 of 1922, the controlling statute, appeals from a judgment in favor of the slate company on the ground that there is no evidence to show that the slate was ever actually delivered to or used by plaintiff and that no demand was ever made on the owner, or attested…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Meriwether Supply Co. v. BaughLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1927
3Cited by4 opinions
- American Creosote Works, Inc. v. City of NatchitochesSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1935
- McGee v. Missouri Valley Dredging Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1966
- Pennington v. CampanellaLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1965
- Central Lumber Co. v. DouglasLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1930