Case ID: so2d_59/html/0246-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "McINNIS, Judge ad hoc. PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Manuel McGEE et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Norris FINLEY et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 7774.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.
    April 30, 1952.
    Rehearing Denied June 2, 1952.
    H. G. Fields, Farmerville, for appellants.
    J. R. Dawkins, Farmerville, for appellees.
   McINNIS, Judge ad hoc.

The issues in this case are identical with those in No. 7775, McGee v. Finley, 59 So.2d 242, with the exception that the title to the land involves Southeast Quarter of Northeast Quarter of Section 10, Township 20 North, Range 1 East, Union Parish, Louisiana.

For the reasons assigned in No. 7775, the judgment appealed from sustaining the exception of no cause and no right of action is reversed and the case is remanded, with leave to amend, for further proceedings according to law and consistent with the views herein expressed.

Defendants-appellees to pay the costs of this appeal. All other costs to await the final determination of this suit.

KENNON, J., not participating.

On Motion for Rehearing

PER CURIAM.

Motion for rehearing has been filed in this case, in which counsel complains of our ruling 'holding that the filing in evidence on trial of a motion for a new trial, of the records in cases Nos. 7772 and 7773, 58 So.2d 561 and 562, had the effect of amending the pleadings, and contending that after judgment sustaining exception of no cause of action it is not possible to amend a petition for any cause. The trend of present day jurisprudence is to allow more latitude in the amendment of pleadings, and to allow litigants an opportunity to have their causes heard on the merits. See Reagor v. First National Life Insurance Company, 212 La. 789, 33 So.2d 521, and cases cited, and Lemoine v. Lacour, 213 La. 109, 34 So.2d 392.

The application is correct in stating that the affidavit was offered in evidence in only one case, however, plaintiffs offered the record in both oases in evidence in both cases, our Nos. 7774 and 7775, 59 So.2d 242. The minutes of the District Court, March 19, 1951, recite that the two cases, our Nos. 7772 and 7773 were consolidated for trial, however, this is unimportant.

With this explanation, the motion for a rehearing is denied.