Legal Opinion

D. Rau & Son v. Smith

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided July 16, 1920No. 7846Published

1Opinion

*540On Application For Rehearing.

The defendant charges that there was error in the judgment herein for three reasons:

Xo Because the judgment of this Court included a sum of $110 claimed in a supplemental petition, to which she had filed no answer and upon '-hich no default' had been taken. She relies upon C. P. 359, 421, 606 & 4 and 14 A., 574; 21 A., 461; 25 A., 166, and other authorities.

¿✓2. _ These authorities apply in all cases where the supplemental petition prays for a relief not included in the original petition, or where the defendant has* a right to answer before the new issues raised…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. St. Louis Cypress Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1908
  2. Stephens v. DuckettSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1904
  3. Independent Ice & Distilled Water Manufacturing Co. v. AndersonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1901
  4. Rio v. GordonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1840

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

Powered by the Exa API