Stephenson v. List Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Inc.
Decision Date | 29 April 1935 |
Docket Number | 33343 |
Citation | 182 La. 383,162 So. 19 |
Parties | STEPHENSON v. LIST LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANERS, Inc., et al |
Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Judgment annulled, rule nisi made absolute, writs perpetuated, and case remanded with directions.
Irion & Switzer and Malcolm E. Lafargue, all of Shreveport, for relator.
Barksdale Bullock, Warren, Clark & Van Hook, of Shreveport, for respondents.
OPINION
Relatrix, in her capacity as natural tutrix of her minor child, filed suit for damages against List Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Inc., a Louisiana corporation doing business in the state of Texas, and its assurer, Central Surety & Insurance Corporation, a Texas corporation, authorized to do business in the state of Louisiana, in solido. She alleged that her minor son received personal injuries as a result of the negligence on the part of the driver of a truck which belonged to defendant, List Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Inc.
The insurance carrier is made a party defendant under the provisions of Act No. 55 of 1930.
Respondent List Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Inc., filed an exception of vagueness and the Central Surety & Insurance Corporation filed a plea of lis pendens and both defendants filed, jointly, the following exceptions:
The record does not show whether the exception of vagueness and the plea of lis pendens were disposed of by the trial judge. He overruled the exception of misjoinder but sustained the plea to the jurisdiction. This matter is now before us for review on writs granted by this court.
The plea of misjoinder was based on the proposition that the plaintiff's cause of action against List Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Inc., was one arising in tort and the action against the insurance carrier was based on the insurance policy and was, therefore, ex contractu. We think the trial judge was correct in overruling this exception. See Stephenson et al. v. New Orleans Ry. & Light Co. et al., 165 La. 132, 115 So. 412.
The exception to the jurisdiction was maintained by the district judge, who based his reasons therefor on the case of Lowery v. Zorn, 157 So. 826, rendered by the Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit of Louisiana, and Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Delta & Pine Land Co., 292 U.S. 143, 54 S.Ct. 634, 636, 78 L.Ed. 1178, 92 A. L. R. 928.
The trial judge fell into the same error as the Court of Appeal did in the case of Lowery v. Zorn, supra, in maintaining the exception to the jurisdiction. The Hartford Case, supra, is not authority in support of his contention but rather against same. The Supreme Court of the United States, in that case, held:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial