Case Name: George STEWART, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MALONEY TRUCKING & STORAGE, INC., Defendant and Appellee
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1962-10-01
Citations: 147 So. 2d 62
Docket Number: No. 579
Parties: George STEWART, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MALONEY TRUCKING & STORAGE, INC., Defendant and Appellee.
Judges: Before CULPEPPER, PONDER and McGEE, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 147
Pages: 62–66

Head Matter:
George STEWART, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MALONEY TRUCKING & STORAGE, INC., Defendant and Appellee.
No. 579.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Fourth Circuit.
Oct. 1, 1962.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 10, 1962.
Arnold C. Jacobs, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.
Beard, Blue, Schmitt & Treen, David C. Treen, New Orleans, for defendant-appel-lee.
Before CULPEPPER, PONDER and McGEE, JJ.

Opinion:
JESSE C. McGEE, Judge ad hoc.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff, George Stewart, from a judgment of the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, re fusing to permit plaintiff to file a supplemental and amended petition wherein he sought to substitute parties defendant herein after issue had been joined by the original defendant filing its answer.
The facts appear to be that the plaintiff, a claimant for workmen's compensation, was paid compensation by Maloney Car-loading, Inc., his employer, through January 6, 1958, when payments were stopped; that some ten months later or on November 6, 1958, he filed his suit for compensation naming Maloney Trucking and Storage, Inc., as the defendant. The stipulation in the record shows that after the suit was filed but prior to December 3, 1958, a Mr. Carruth, an associate of the law firm representing Maloney Trucking and Storage, Inc., had a telephone conversation with Mr. Arnold Jacobs, plaintiff's attorney, and informed Mr. Jacobs that his plaintiff was an employee of Maloney Carloading, Inc., and not an employee of the named defendant. Mr. Jacobs informed Mr. Carruth that it would not be necessary to file an answer to the suit, but that he, Jacobs, would correct the error; on December 3, 1958, Mr. Carruth wrote to Mr. Ed Burke, claims manager of both Maloney Carloading, Inc., and Maloney Trucking and Storage, Inc., advising Mr. Burke of the telephone conversation he had with Mr. Jacobs and a copy of this letter went to Mr. Jacobs. The stipulation further recites that Maloney Trucking and Storage, Inc., and Maloney Carloading, Inc., are Louisiana corporations with their principal offices at 133 North Front Street, New Orleans, and both corporations have the same president and same workmen's compensation claims manager and that these facts were known to plaintiff's attorney prior to the filing of the original petition.
The plaintiff not having amended his petition to correct the error in his original petition by November 25, 1959, on that date Maloney Trucking and Storage, Inc., filed its answer, being a general denial of the plaintiff's allegation, however, in its answer, the named defendant admitted that plaintiff had been treated medically and had been paid a compensation by Maloney Carload-ing, Inc., until the early part of January, 1958. Then on January 20, 1961, the attorney for plaintiff by motion placed the cause on the call docket for fixing and trial, the motion stating that all issues propounded in the case have been joined and that the case was then ready for trial on its merits. Then on March 20, 1961, after issue had been joined and the cause moved to the call docket for fixing and trial, the plaintiff sought to supplement and amend his petition by changing or substituting Maloney Car-loading, Inc., as the defendant in lieu of Maloney Trucking and Storage, Inc., the original defendant. An order was signed that day allowing the amended and supplemental petition.
Then on May 11, 1961, Maloney Carload-ing, Inc., appeared solely for the purpose of its motion, and suggested to the court that by the supplemental and amended petition, the mover had been made the party defendant in lieu of the Maloney Trucking and Storage, Inc., the original defendant, and further suggesting that any cause of action asserted in the original petition as against mover had prescribed on or about January 8, 1959, being more than two years prior to the filing of the supplemental and amended petition; that the order dated March 20, 1961, allowing and permitting the filing of the amended petition was improvidently granted and that the same should be rescinded. The plaintiff was ordered to show cause on May 19, 1961, why the order of March 20, 1961, should not be rescinded and voided, and after a hearing on the rule, the court was of the opinion that the motion was well founded and accordingly made the rule absolute. The judge in his reasons for judgment stated that the plaintiff was timely advised and had ample opportunity to amend his petition at the time of the notice advising him who had actually employed plaintiff at the time of his injury, as the notice was given less than a month after plaintiff had filed his suit. On June 28, 1961, judgment was signed rescinding, voiding and setting aside the order permitting the filing of the amended petition. It is from this judgment that plaintiff has appealed.
The appellee contends that the right to amend is governed by Article 419 of the Code of Practice, the Code of Civil Procedure not being in force at the time these proceedings were had; that under that article amendments were permitted, until issue had been joined and thereafter only by leave of the court.
The Code of Civil Procedure became effective on Januax-y 1, 1961, and it is declared to be remedial legislation, and shall govern and regulate the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings pending on the effective date of the new Code, except that none of the provisions thereof shall decrease or shorten any procedural delay which had commenced to run but had not completely elapsed on the effective date. Section 4(A), Act IS of 1960, page 748, Vol. 1, LSA-C.C.P.
We feel that the Code of Civil Procedure governs the situation here as the amended petition was filed on March 20, 1961, wherein plaintiff sought to substitute Maloney Carloading, Inc., as the defendant in lieu of Maloney Trucking and Stoi-age, Inc., and in view of the interruption of the prescription by plaintiff's suit and citation on a closely allied corporation, as aforesaid, we feel that the trial court should have allowed the amended petition.
Article 1151 of the LSA-Code of Civil Procedure pi-ovides the procedure for amendments and supplemental pleadings. It provides that a plaintiff may amend his petition without leave of court at any time before the answer thereto is served, and the defendant may amend his answer once without leave of court at any time within ten days after it has been served, otherwise, the petition and answer may be amended only by leave of court or written consent of the adverse party.
The mover, Maloney Carloading, Inc., suggested to the court that any cause of action asserted in the original petition as against mover had prescribed on January 8, 1959, and more than two years prior to the filing of the amended petition. The trial coui't.made no ruling on this matter of prescription. Here it may be noted that a citation, though insufficient to support a judgment, will interrupt prescription if it notifies defendant of the grounds of plaintiff's claim and that plaintiff is asserting such claim. Lunkin v. Triangle Farms, Inc., (1945) 208 La. 538, 23 So.2d 209, a Supreme Court decision. In this Lunkin case trial was had on the merits against an incorrect defendant whereas it should have been against Triangle Farms, Inc., there being two separate and distinct legal entities and engaged in different pursuits but both operated from the same office and under the same management and in some instances with the same employees. This being somewhat similar to the situation here. We are of the opinion that the citation had the effect of interrupting the one year prescription.
In view of the foregoing we are of the opinion that the trial court was in error in not allowing the amended petition.
For the reasons assigned the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded to the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans to be there proceeded with in accordance with law.
The Maloney Carloading, Inc., is cast for the costs in this court.
Reversed and remanded.