Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

129 La. 628

Communy v. O'Sullivan

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided November 13, 1911

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1911-11-13

<p>Appeal from Twenty-Eighth Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson; Prentice E. Edrington, Judge. .</p> <p>Action by Mrs. A. Communy against E. A. O’Sullivan. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant and the Emma Realty Company appeal.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently December 1936

2 state decisions

Relies on Interstate Trust & Banking Co. v. Powell Bros. & Sanders

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed in part, and reversed in part · Decided 1911-11-13

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

LAND, J.

¶1The defendant and the Emma Realty Company have appealed from a decree of executory process in the above entitled suit. The sole issue is whether the decree was warranted by the authentic evidence attached to plaintiff’s petition. The only objection .of merit urged by the appellants is as follows:

“That part of the claim made and covered by the order of executory process was for a tax, the receipt for which, annexed to the petition, shows that it was paid by Omer Villere, and in no way was plaintiff shown to be connected therewith.”

¶2The tax receipt referred to is in the name of the Emma Realty Company, and the indorsement thereon reads:

“Paid by Omer Villere.”

¶3There is no authentic evidence that plaintiff paid the taxes through Omer Villere as agent. This proof was essential to obtain an order for executory process. Interstate Trust & Banking Co. v. Powell Bros. & Sanders Co., 126 La. 22, 52 South. 179.

¶4It is therefore ordered that the decree of executory process, appealed from, be reversed as to the taxes for 1909, and be affirmed in all other respects; plaintiff to pay costs of appeal.

/129/la/628 · .json · Public domain