Case Name: Charles BACHER v. Adolphus ALBERT et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1932-02-01
Citations: 141 So. 5
Docket Number: No. 31269
Parties: Charles BACHER v. Adolphus ALBERT et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Southern Reporter
Volume: 141
Pages: 5–6

Head Matter:
174 La. 388
Charles BACHER v. Adolphus ALBERT et al.
No. 31269.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Feb. 1, 1932.
Rehearing Denied March 30, 1932.
Deutsch & Kerrigan, Milling, Godchaux, Saal & Milling, and B. D. Saunders, all of New Orleans, for appellant.
Edward Rightor, of New Orleans, for A. Albert, Lynn H. Dinkins, and Dr. George A. McDiarmid.
St. Clair Adams, of New Orleans, for Eugene J. Appolonio, Arthur F. Shuey, and Donald 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, MeEnerny & Waguespaek, of New Orleans, for Joseph A. Danna.
George Dreyfous, of New Orleans, for Felix 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 Es-mond Phelps.
Merrick, Schwarz, Guste, Barnett & Red-mann, of New Orleans, for John W. Phillips,
Marcus Walker, Harold S. Weil, and Herman Weil.
Morris LeCompte, 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 & Upt-oh, of New Orleans, for Emile' Sundbery and John S. Waterman.
Henry & Cooper, of New Orleans, for Charles B. Thorn.

Opinion:
ROGERS, J.
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment dismissing his suit on an exception of no cause of action.
The defendants in this case are the same as the defendants in the case of Charles Wirth, Sr., v. A. Albert et al. (La. Sup.) 141 So. 1, this day decided; and, except as to the party 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.
Eor the reasons assigned in Wirth v. Albert, supra, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.