Buras v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 35766.

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
Writing for the CourtLAND, Justice.
Citation196 So. 335,195 La. 244
PartiesBURAS et al. v. FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. OF MARYLAND.
Decision Date29 April 1940
Docket Number35766.

196 So. 335

195 La. 244

BURAS et al.
v.
FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO.
OF MARYLAND.

No. 35766.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 29, 1940


Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; William H. Byrnes, Jr., Judge.

Action by Mrs. Ben V. Buras and another against the Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, to recover amount of purchase price paid under bond for deed agreement. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant perfected a suspensive appeal. On plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the appeal.

Decree in accordance with opinion.

Where Supreme Court has no jurisdiction on appeal because the amount in controversy does not exceed $2,000, it may transfer the appeal to the proper Court of Appeal rather than dismiss it. LSA-R.S. 13:4441, 13:4442; LSA-Const.1921, art. 7, § 10.

[195 La. 245] P. M. Milner, of New Orleans, for appellant.

J. A. Woodville and J. L. Warren Woodville, both of New Orleans, for appellees.

LAND, Justice.

On August 27, 1927, plaintiff and her husband entered into a ‘ Bond for Deed’ agreement with Priest, Montagnet & Roshko, Inc., real estate agents of the City of New Orleans, to purchase Lots Nos. 3 and 4 in Block No. 5 on the map of Roseland Park Subdivision for the consideration [195 La. 246] of $1,250. The defendant, Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, was surety for this corporation for the years 1927, 1928 and 1929, on a bond executed under the terms and provisions of Act 236 of 1920.

Plaintiffs allege that on November 29, 1927, the name of the corporation was changed from Priest, Montagnet & Roshko, Inc., to Montagnet & Jones, Inc., and that on or about the 21st day of February, 1929, upon completion of all their payments, they wrote to Montagnet & Jones, Inc., requesting that a good and valid title be made to them translative of the lots in question but that, in spite of repeated demands, plaintiffs have never been able to secure title to the real estate described in the ‘ Bond for Deed.'

On June 16, 1938, plaintiffs brought the present suit against the Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, as surety on the ‘ Bond for Deed,’ to recover the amount of the purchase price paid in the sum of $1,250, with legal interest from February 21, 1929, until paid, together with ten per cent attorney's fees, under the provisions of Act 225 of 1918, on the amount of the principal and interest due.

Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiffs for the sum of $1,250, with interest and attorney's fees, as...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Buras v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 36050.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Louisiana
    • March 3, 1941
    ...to the Court of Appeal for the Parish of Orleans, because of lack of jurisdiction. See Buras v. Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, 195 La. 244, 196 So. 335. The case is now before us on a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeal reversing the judgment of the low......
  • Hagerty v. Clement, 35645.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Louisiana
    • April 29, 1940
    ...include among its numerous features a provision forbidding the termination of trusts by consent, clearly indicates their view that the new [195 La. 244] rule was necessary to make the trust device more effective than the simple instruments of trust drafted under the authority of the previou......
  • Buras v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 17435.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • November 4, 1940
    ...to bonded real estate company. From a judgment for the plaintiffs, defendant appealed to the Supreme Court which transferred the appeal, 195 La. 244, 196 So. 335, to the Court of Appeal. Reversed and rendered. WESTERFIELD, J., dissenting. P. M. Milner, of New Orleans, for appellant. J. A. W......
  • Thompson v. Jones, 36595.
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • April 27, 1942
    ...Mayer v. Stahr, 35 La.Ann. 57; and Standifer & Co. v. Covington, 35 La.Ann. 896. The case of Buras v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 195 La. 244, 196 So. 335, relied upon by the appellee, is not in point. There the contention was that accrued interest should be added to the principal d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Buras v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 36050.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Louisiana
    • March 3, 1941
    ...to the Court of Appeal for the Parish of Orleans, because of lack of jurisdiction. See Buras v. Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, 195 La. 244, 196 So. 335. The case is now before us on a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeal reversing the judgment of the low......
  • Hagerty v. Clement, 35645.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Louisiana
    • April 29, 1940
    ...include among its numerous features a provision forbidding the termination of trusts by consent, clearly indicates their view that the new [195 La. 244] rule was necessary to make the trust device more effective than the simple instruments of trust drafted under the authority of the previou......
  • Buras v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 17435.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • November 4, 1940
    ...to bonded real estate company. From a judgment for the plaintiffs, defendant appealed to the Supreme Court which transferred the appeal, 195 La. 244, 196 So. 335, to the Court of Appeal. Reversed and rendered. WESTERFIELD, J., dissenting. P. M. Milner, of New Orleans, for appellant. J. A. W......
  • Thompson v. Jones, 36595.
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • April 27, 1942
    ...Mayer v. Stahr, 35 La.Ann. 57; and Standifer & Co. v. Covington, 35 La.Ann. 896. The case of Buras v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 195 La. 244, 196 So. 335, relied upon by the appellee, is not in point. There the contention was that accrued interest should be added to the principal d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT