Case ID: so_195/html/0842-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DREW, Justice. TALIAFERRO, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HOLLAND v. GROSS et al.
    No. 5884.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.
    April 28, 1939.
    On the Merits Jan. 5, 1940.
    Edward L. Gladney, Jr., of Bastrop, Hudson, Potts, Bernstein & Snellings, of Monroe, for appellant.
    Robert P. Kennedy, of Lake Providence, and Theus, Grisham, Davis & Leigh, of Monroe, for appellees.
   DREW, Justice.

This is a companion suit to No. 5882, 195 So. 837, decided by us this day. They were consolidated for trial below. The pleadings, for all purposes of a decision, are the same as No. 5882, and the identical motion to transfer was filed herein.

For the reasons assigned in No. 5882, the motion is denied and the case is returned to our docket to be refixed for argument.

On the Merits.

TALIAFERRO, Judge.

This is also a companion suit to Nos. 5885, 195 So. 839, and 5886, 195 So. 828 on the docket of this court, decided today.

W. O. Holland, as natural tutor to his daughter, Mary, sues to recover $5,500 for the physical pain and suffering experienced by her as a result of the accident discussed in said companion cases. In all.other respects the pleadings, the issues, motions and exceptions filed below and here are identical with those in companion suit No. 5885, decided here today. There was judgment for plaintiff for $800 and he appealed, praying for increase.

After being administered first aid, this daughter, with her mother and brother, was removed to the hospital at Vicksburg Mississippi. She was found to be suffering from’cerebral hemorrhage and in mild shock. There were a few lacerations on her scalp and some contusions about her body. She improved steadily and was discharged six days later. Her recovery has been complete. The award in her case seems to be adequate.

For the reasons herein assigned and for those assigned in said suit No. 5886, the judgment appealed from is affirmed with costs.

And for the reasons assigned in our opinion in suit No. 5885, this appeal, so far as it involves and concerns the re-vocatory action, in keeping with the provisions of Act 19 of 1912, is hereby transferred to the Supreme Court of the State ; and plaintiff is given ninety days from the finality' of the money judgment herein, in which to perfect the transfer by filing in the Supreme Court proper transcript; and in default of plaintiff’s compliance with this order within said time, the appeal to this court as regards the revocatory action, will be deemed to have been abandoned.