From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Union Indemnity Co. v. F.D. Harvey Co.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit
Jan 3, 1934
151 So. 776 (La. Ct. App. 1934)

Opinion

No. 4457.

January 3, 1934.

Appeal from Third Judicial District Court, Parish of Jackson; E.L. Walker, Judge.

On rehearing.

For former opinion, see 148 So. 501.

Boyd K. Watson, of Marion, for appellant.

H.W. Ayres, of Jonesboro, for appellee.


This case is before us on rehearing. After a careful reconsideration of the case, we are convinced that the former judgment of this court is correct, and it is therefore reinstated and made the opinion of the court.

In the former opinion of this court, the court said, on page 502 of 148 So.: "Plaintiff has not filed brief in this court. Its brief in the district court is in the record, and from this we believe we are able to appreciate its theory of the case, but feel certain our lahors would have been much less had plaintiff fully briefed its side of the case in this court."

In fairness to the attorney for plaintiff, we wish to state that his brief was filed in due time and was misplaced. With that knowledge in mind after rendition of the former opinion, we felt it was necessary to grant a rehearing in order to correct the former misstatement in regard to brief of plaintiff's attorney, and also to recheck the figures upon which the judgment was based.

We find no error in the former judgment, and same is reinstated and the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

Union Indemnity Co. v. F.D. Harvey Co.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit
Jan 3, 1934
151 So. 776 (La. Ct. App. 1934)
Case details for

Union Indemnity Co. v. F.D. Harvey Co.

Case Details

Full title:UNION INDEMNITY CO. v. F.D. HARVEY CO

Court:Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit

Date published: Jan 3, 1934

Citations

151 So. 776 (La. Ct. App. 1934)

Citing Cases

United States v. Susanna Plantation

Where conflict exists between typewritten provisions and printed provisions of a contract, the typewritten…

Dean v. Pisciotta

And, in such case, the typewritten provision would control as it is a general rule of interpretation of…