Case ID: la_174/html/0385-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ROGERS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

141 So. 5
    Mr. and Mrs. John David WIRTH v. Adolphus ALBERT et al.
    No. 31270.
    Feb. 1, 1932.
    Rehearing Denied March 30, 1932.
    Deutsch & Kerrigan, Milling, Godchaux, Saal, Milling, and E, D. Saunders, all of New Orleans, for appellants.
    Edward Rightor, of New Orleans, for A. Albert, Lynn II. Dinkins, and Dr. George A. Mc-Diarmid.
    St. Clair Adams, of New Orleans, for Eugene J. Appolonio, Arthur F. Shuey,'and Don- • aid Yarbrough.
    Terriberry, Young, Rault & Carroll, of New Orleans, for Leigh Carroll.
    Harry McCall, of New Orleans, for Henry H. Chaffe.
    Charles J. Rivet, of New Orleans, for William T. Coats.
    Legier, McEnerny & Waguespack, of New Orleans, for Joseph A. Danna.
    George Dreyfous, of New Orleans, for Feiix J. Dreyfous.
    Sidney Herold, of Shreveport, for Charles Ellerbe.
    Montgomery & Montgomery and Harry F. Stiles, Jr., all of New Orleans, for Bush M. Jackson.
    Racivitch & Hickerson, of New Orleans, for Fred N. Ogden.
    
      Philip Gidiere, of New Orleans, for Esmond Phelps.
    Merrick, Schwarz, Guste, Barnett & Redmann, of New Orleans, for John W. Phillips, Marcus Walker, Harold S. Weil, and Herman Weil.
    Morris LeOompte, of New Orleans, for Cecil G. Robinson.
    Borah & Bloch, of New Orleans, for Dr. Paul H. Saunders.
    Harvey Peltier, of Thibodaux, for H. L. Sims.
    Dart & Dart, of New Orleans, for Sidney W. Souers.
    Guión & Upton, of New Orleans, for Emile Sundbery and John S. Waterman.
    Henry & Cooper, of New Orleans, for Charles B. Thorn.
   ROGERS, J.

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment dismissing their suit on an exception of no cause of action.

The defendants in the case are the same as the defendants in the case of Charles Wirth, Sr., v. Albert et al. (La. Sup.) 141 So. 1, this day decided; and, except as to the parties plaintiff, the amount involved, and the numbers of the interim certificates, the cases are identical. What we said in affirming the judgment in the other case is equally applicable to the present case.

For the reasons assigned in Wirth v. Albert, supra, the judgment appealed from is affirmed. 
      
       174 La. 374.