Legal Opinion

Eichelberger v. B. &. T. Const. Co.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided February 2, 1931No. 27366PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSt. Paul, J.

Plaintiff provoked a concursus proceeding under the provisions of Act No. 139 of 1922, and cited the B. & T. Construction Company, contractor, the Union Indemnity Company, surety on the contractor’s bond, and all lien claimants including J. C. Shepherd, doing business under the name of J. C. Shepherd & Company.

A plea of compensation and a reconventional demand were filed against Shepherd & Company by the Union Indemnity Company for certain premiums due to that company by Shepherd & Company. The Continental Bank & Trust Company then filed an intervention, and claimed an assignment from…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Lockhart v. LockhartSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1905
  2. City of New Orleans v. New Orleans Jockey ClubSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1904
  3. Hibernia Bank & Trust Co. v. Jacob A. Zimmerman & Sons, Inc.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1929

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Verrett v. SavoieSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1932
  2. Bean Contracting Co. v. McNamaraLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1989

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

Powered by the Exa API