Case ID: so2d_229/html/0741-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "FRUGÉ, Judge. PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

TEXACO, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. H. O. ROY, INC., et al., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 2889.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Third Circuit.
    Nov. 25, 1969.
    On Rehearing Dec. 18, 1969.
    Joseph Onebane and Robert L. Cabes, of Davidson, Meaux, Onebane & Donohoe, Lafayette, for defendant-appellant.
    Gordon B. Hyde and Patrick Butler, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.
    Bean & Rush, by Warren D. Rush, Domengeaux, Wright & Bienvenu, by Fred Smith, Lafayette, for defendant-ap-pellee.
    Before FRUGÉ, HOOD and MILLER, JJ-
   FRUGÉ, Judge.

The issues in this suit are identical to those in Texaco, Inc. v. H. O. Roy, Inc., La.App., 229 So.2d 739, a companion appeal rendered by us this date. For the reasons stated in the companion appeal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in favor of Texaco, Inc., plaintiff-appellee, at defendant-appellant’s cost.

Affirmed.

On Application for Rehearing.

En Banc.

PER CURIAM.

Our decision herein was rendered on November 25. The defendant-appellant, H. O. Roy, Inc., through his counsel, received notice of the judgment sent through certified mail by signed receipt dated the following day, November 26. The defendant’s application for rehearing is dated December 11 and was mailed the same day and is therefore not timely, for the reasons assigned in the companion case this day decided, Texaco, Inc. v. H. O. Roy, Inc. et al., La.App., 229 So.2d 739.

Application for rehearing not considered.