Olivedell Planting Co. v. Town of Lake Providence
| Decision Date | 18 March 1946 |
| Docket Number | 38088. |
| Citation | 209 La. 898,25 So.2d 735 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | OLIVEDELL PLANTING CO., Inc., et al. v. TOWN OF LAKE PROVIDENCE. |
R. V. Reeves, of Oak Grove, and Theus, Grisham Davis & Leigh, of Monroe, for relators.
Henry G. Norris, of Lake Providence, and George Wesley Smith Associate Counsel, of Monroe, for Town of Lake Providence.
This matter is before us under our supervisory jurisdiction and involves the correctness of the overruling by the trial judge of a motion to consolidate for the purpose of trial, with separate judgments to be rendered in each case, three suits pending on the docket of the Sixth Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of East Carroll.
These three suits (styled 'Olivedell Planting Co., Inc., et als. vs Town of Lake Providence,' No. 2288 on the docket of the court; 'W. T. Mitchiner et als. vs. Town of Lake Providence,' No. 2289, and 'S. K. Mitchiner et als vs. Town of Lake Providence,' No. 2290) were brought to recover damages sustained by plaintiffs therein resulting from fire losses which occurred on January 15, 1944. Previous to the day fixed for trial, counsel for plaintiffs filed a motion to have all three cases consolidated for the purpose of trial, with separate judgments to be rendered in each case. On the day fixed for trial, counsel for defendant orally objected to the consolidation of these cases, whereupon the court sustained this objection and overruled plaintiffs' motion. Counsel then applied to this court for remedial writs. After due consideration of their application, we granted a writ of certiorari with a stay order and a rule directed to the district judge and the respondent, Town of Lake Providence, to show cause why the relief prayed for in the petition of relators should not be granted.
The respondent judge has not filed an answer to the rule, and we are therefore without the benefits of his reasons for overruling the motion to consolidate, nor has the original record or a certified copy thereof been filed in this court. The case has been submitted on the allegations of relators' application, together with the documents thereto attached, and briefs filed by both relators and respondent, Town of Lake Providence.
Relators' application, with the documents attached, discloses that the three suits sought to be consolidated were filed at the same time, in the same court, by the same counsel, and are against the same defendant, Town of Lake Providence, and the cause of action for each arose at the same time and out of the same instance, namely, damages resulting from fires caused by alleged negligent construction, operation, and maintenance of the defendant's electric transmission lines, and that all of the facts and issues involved in these cases, with the exception of the extent of damages claimed, are identical, and all involve the identical charges of negligence and ommission on the part of defendant.
Relators' application alleges that 27 witnesses were subpoenaed, and that their testimony would not include the testimony to be given by the parties to these...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Garner
...v. Messersmith, 229 La. 495, 86 So.2d 169; Riggin v. Watson-Aven Ice Cream Co., 192 La. 469, 188 So. 144; Olivedell Planting Co. v. Town of Lake Providence, 209 La. 898, 25 So.2d 735. We conclude that in order to avoid a multiplicity of criminal proceedings and to dispose of this matter exp......
-
Olivedell Planting Co. v. Town of Lake Providence
...submitted, after which they were overruled by the district judge. On the trial on the merits, the cases having been consolidated, 209 La. 898, 25 So.2d 735, judgments were rendered in each instance holding the statutes in question to be constitutional and awarding judgments in favor of each......
-
Honeycutt v. Town of Boyce
...unnecessary expense, delay and vexation in the administration of justice which the law aims to avoid. Olivedell Planting Co. v. Town of Lake Providence, 209 La. 898, 25 So.2d 735 (1946). However, these policies are not violated by compromise and settlement in one suit with reservation of ri......
-
S.K. Whitty and Co., Inc. v. Laurence L. Lambert & Associates
...188 So. 144 (1939); Clifton v. Tri-State Transit Co. of Louisiana, 197 La. 222, 1 So.2d 84 (1941); Olivedell Planting Co. v. Town of Lake Providence, 209 La. 898, 25 So.2d 735 (1946); Maddox v. Pattison, 186 So. 894 (La.App.1939 [1938] ). The courts were held to have inherent judicial power......