Augusta Sugar Co., Limited v. Haley
| Decision Date | 25 April 1927 |
| Docket Number | 26505 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | AUGUSTA SUGAR CO., Limited, v. HALEY et al |
Appeal from Fourteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Avoyelles S. Allen Bordelon, Judge.
Suit by the Augusta Sugar Company, Limited, against A. E. Haley and others. From a judgment of dismissal, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
W. E Couvillon, of Marksville, for appellant.
Joffrion & Joffrion, of Marksville, for appellees.
The only question involved in this appeal is whether the plaintiff has abandoned this suit within the meaning of Act No. 107 of 1898 ( R. C. C. art. 3519), which declares that, whenever a plaintiff "shall at any time before obtaining final judgment allow five years to elapse without having taken any steps in the prosecution thereof, he shall be considered as having abandoned the same."
The suit was filed October 10, 1910, and the only active step which plaintiff has ever taken in the prosecution thereof has been to file a supplemental petition amending the original petition and substituting the Merchants' & Planters' Bank as plaintiff in its stead, to wit on June 1, 1917; being about six years before defendant moved for the fourth time to dismiss the suit as having been abandoned.
The only other evidence which plaintiff has given of its interest in the suit has been purely passive; i. e., in resisting defendants' efforts to have the suit dismissed, to wit, three former motions by defendant to dismiss the suit as abandoned and one motion to strike out the supplemental petition as tending to change the issues.
We think that a step in the prosecution of a suit means something more than a mere passive effort to keep the suit on the docket of the court; it means some active measure taken by plaintiff, intended and calculated to hasten the suit to judgment. Otherwise we would have this absurd result, that every effort of a defendant to dismiss the suit would result merely in prolonging the delay within which the plaintiff must proceed with the prosecution thereof.
And such was not the legislators' intent; for it is well known that the very purpose of the act was to put an end to the then prevailing practice of filing suit to interrupt prescription, and then letting the suit hang perpetually over the head of the defendant unless he himself should force the issue; in other words, of putting on the defendant the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. Salamon
...active measure taken by [the] plaintiff, intended and calculated to hasten the suit to judgment." Id. (quoting Augusta Sugar Co. v. Haley, 163 La. 814, 112 So. 731, 732 (1927)). The analysis we outlined in Gulf Appliance was an effort to construe the parameters of the term "affirmatively" t......
-
Chemrock Corp.. v. Tampa Electric Co.
...active measure taken by [the] plaintiff, intended and calculated to hasten the suit to judgment.” Id. (quoting Augusta Sugar Co. v. Haley, 163 La. 814, 112 So. 731, 732 (1927)). The analysis we outlined in Gulf Appliance was an effort to construe the parameters of the term “affirmatively” t......
-
Isaac v. Benson Chevrolet Co.
...v. Continental Cas. Co., 307 So.2d 308, 312 (La.1975); Sliman v. Araguel, 196 La. 859, 200 So. 280, 281 (1941); Augusta Sugar Co. v. Haley, 163 La. 814, 112 So. 731, 732 (1927). This Court has found that "it is well settled that a `step in prosecution' of an action, as used in La. C.C.P. ar......
-
Pounds v. Yancy, 7693
...judgment, but fails to do so through neglect or inaction, he will be considered as having abandoned his suit. Augusta Sugar Co., Ltd. v. Haley et al., 163 La. 814, 112 So. 731. In contending circumstances beyond their control prevented their prosecution of the former action, plaintiffs alle......
-
The Florida Supreme Court dulls the edge of Rule 1.420(e).
...2d 165, 173 (Fla. 1980). 5 See Gulf Appliance Distributors, Inc. v. Long, 53 So. 2d 706 (Fla.1951) (quoting Augusta Sugar Co. v. Haley, 112 So. 731, 732 (La. 1927)) (interpreting the statutory predecessor to Rule 1.420(e), Fla. Stat. [section]45.19(1) (6) In 1976, the Florida Supreme Court ......