Case Name: F. E. LACAZE, Defendant In Injunction, Appellant, v. Rufus ATKINS, Plaintiff In Injunction, Appellee; Rufus ATKINS et al., Plalntiffs-Appellees, v. F. E. LACAZE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1935-02-05
Citations: 158 So. 876
Docket Number: No. 4908
Parties: F. E. LACAZE, Defendant In Injunction, Appellant, v. Rufus ATKINS, Plaintiff In Injunction, Appellee. Rufus ATKINS et al., Plalntiffs-Appellees, v. F. E. LACAZE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Southern Reporter
Volume: 158
Pages: 876–877

Head Matter:
F. E. LACAZE, Defendant In Injunction, Appellant, v. Rufus ATKINS, Plaintiff In Injunction, Appellee. Rufus ATKINS et al., Plalntiffs-Appellees, v. F. E. LACAZE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 4908.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.
Feb. 5, 1935.
Hunter & Hunter, of Shreveport, for appellants.
Herold, Counsin & Herold, Wilkinson, Lewis & Wilkinson, Edward S. Klein, and Ed ward Barnett, all of Shreveport, for appel-lees.

Opinion:
DREW, Judge.
These two cases were consolidated for the purpose of trial below with the case of M. S. and Lula Davis et al. v. E. E. Lacaze, which case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the state and bears No. 329111 on the docket of the Supreme Court of the state of Louisiana. 158 So. 626.
The three cases involve a similar state of facts, and it is agreed by counsel for both appellant and appellee that the decis'on of the Supreme Court in the above-numbered and styled ease, in which the judgment of the lower court was affirmed, is conclusive of the issues in the cases at bar.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the case of M. S. and Lula Davis et al. v. E. E. Lacaze, No. 32911 on the docket of the Supreme Court of the state of Louisiana, decided January 7, 1935, the decisions of the lower court in these two cases are affirmed, with costs.