Case ID: la_12/html/0295-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Martin, J.,\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BEDFORD vs. URQUHART ET AL.
    Eastern Dist.
    
      May, 1838.
    APPEAL FROM THE PARISH COURT, FOR THE PARISH ANI> CITY OF NEW-ORLEANS.
    No appeal lies from an interlocutory judgment, discharging a rule, requiring the defendants to show cause, why their amended answers should not he stricken from the record.
    No appeal lies from an interlocutory judgment, discharging a rule, requiring the defendants to Jefr Amended answers should not be stricken from the record.
    This case has been before this court in another and former appeal. See 8 Louisiana Reports, 234.
    On the return of the case to the Parish Court, Charles Harrod and Stephen Henderson, by their counsel, with leave of the court, filed their amended or supplemental answers on oath, to the call in warranty made on them.
    The counsel for the plaintiff took a rule on these defendants, to show cause, why their amended or supplemental answer to the said call in warranty, should not be set aside and stricken from the record, on the following grounds:
    1. That they are inconsistent with the original answers and calls in warranty, by the same parties filed in this suit.
    2. That they change the nature of the defence of these parties to the original action.
    3. That they were filed too late.
    The parish judge on an ex parte hearing of the rule, on the part of the plaintiff, made an order that it be discharged.
    . The plaintiff appealed.
    On motion of George Eustis, Esq., of counsel for the defendant, Urquhart, and on producing a final judgment for the defendants in this case, on the merits, and showing further that it was not appealable, the same was dismissed.
   Martin, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff is appellant from the discharge of a rule which he had obtained on S. Henderson and C. Harrod, to _ . - . , , _ _ , show cause why their supplemental or amended answers and calls in warranty, filed by them, should not be stricken from the record. This is clearly an interlocutory order, which wrought no irreparable injury, from which consequently no appeal could legally be taken. O J

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the appeal be dismissed with costs.