Same Case — On a Re-hearing

Decided April 15, 1850

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1850-04-15

THE appellee, Binion, prays for a re-hearing, and makes but one point, namely, that the court has erred, in supposing that his reconventional demand was founded on the non-residence of the plaintiff, Davis. If it had been so founded, we admit that the district judge may have injured plaintiff by the decision. But we do not rely on the amended article of the code: 375. The residence or non-residence of Davis was and is wholly immaterial.

Decided 1850-04-15

¶1The judgment of the court on a rehearing was pronounced by

Rost, J.

¶2We inadvertently omitted to state in the opinion in this case the

¶3conclusion to which we had come, that the defendant could not go into the question of damages on his reconventional demand without the plaintiff’s assent; and that as the assent was withheld he must resort to his action on the attachment bond. For this reason we considered that his right to reconvene depended upon the place of his domicil.

¶4The re-hearing in this case is refused.