Legal Opinion

Costanza v. Cannata

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided June 1, 1948No. 38057PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FOURNET, Justice.

The plaintiffs, Michael A. Costanza and Paul S. Spedale, after having recorded their written acceptance of a building constructed for them by the defendant Bernard A. Cannata, provoked this concursus proceeding under the provisions of Act No. 298 of 1926, depositing the amount retained by them under the contract in the registry of the court and impleading the contractor; the New Amsterdam Casualty Company, the surety on the contractor’s bond; and all of the materialmen who had filed liens against the building. In this same proceeding the plaintiffs sought to recover damages…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Vance v. TourneSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1839
  2. Seaton v. Second MunicipalitySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1848
  3. Dixie Bldg. Material Co. v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1928

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Jack v. HenryLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1961
  2. Justiss-Mears Oil Company v. PenningtonLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1961
  3. Popich v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of MarylandLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1970
  4. Charles C. Cloy, General Contractors, Inc. v. DiVincenti Brothers, Inc.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1975
  5. Svendson v. American Indemnity Co. of GalvestonLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1955

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API