Case Name: BATON ROUGE BLDG. TRADES COUNCIL et al. v. T. L. JAMES & CO., Inc., et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1942-07-27
Citations: 10 So. 2d 606
Docket Number: No. 36489
Parties: BATON ROUGE BLDG. TRADES COUNCIL et al. v. T. L. JAMES & CO., Inc., et al.
Judges: O’NIELL, C. J., and ODOM and ROGERS, JJ., dissent.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 10
Pages: 606–636

Head Matter:
201 La. 749
BATON ROUGE BLDG. TRADES COUNCIL et al. v. T. L. JAMES & CO., Inc., et al.
No. 36489.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
July 27, 1942.
Dissenting Opinion Aug. 6, 1942.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 4, 1942.
Durrett & Hardin, of Baton Rouge, and Barksdale & Barksdale, of Ruston, for def endants-app ellants.
Bentley G. Byrnes, of New Orleans, and Wilbur D. Atkins and Jack P. F. Gremil-lion, both of Baton Rouge, for plaintiffs-appellees.
J. Thos. Jewell, of New Roads, amicus curiae.

Opinion:
HIGGINS, Justice.
This is an action for specific performance of a contract. The defendants filed, in the alternative, with reservation of their rights, •exceptions to the jurisdiction, of the court ratione personae and ratione materiae, and of no right and no cause of action. The defendants also filed an answer denying that a contract' had been entered into between the parties.
The district judge overruled the exceptions and granted judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, as prayed for. The defendants appealed.
Our appreciation and understanding of the law and the fads of this case both with reference to the exceptions and the merits are in accord with the views expressed by our learned brother below in two opinions, which we quote with approval:
On the Exceptions
"Now, the petition recites, in addition to other allegations of facts, the following:
" 'Petitioners allege that on or about March 4, 1941, the Department of Highways of Louisiana, acting through its Director, Hon. W. Prescott Foster, signed and ratified a contract with a partnership of contractors, namely, T. L. James & Co., Inc., a private corporation organized under the laws of the State of Louisiana, domiciled in the Parish of Lincoln, Louisiana, and L. J. N. Keliher, doing business as the Keliher Construction Company, whom petitioners allege on information and belief and believes his domicile to be in the City of Dallas, State of Texas, but temporarily residing and doing business within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, for the erection of a certain highway bridge or project, known and designated and referred to as the "Morganza Floodway Project", —which contract calls for the erection of a bridge over Louisiana State Route No. 7 and over United States Route No. 190, to run from Lottie Louisiana, to the 'Atcha-falaya River, all of which project is located in and lies within the Parish of Pointe Coupee, Louisiana.'
" 'That the said T. L. James Co., Inc., and L. J. N. Keliher, doing business as the Keliher Construction Company, signed the contract above referred to as a partnership and became partners to fulfill the above-mentioned and described and numbered contract.
" 'That on or after the signing of said contract, work was commenced by the contractors in the performance of said contract and work is now being performed on said project, all in accordance with the terms of said contract.'
"The prayer of the petition in part reads as follows:
" 'Petitioners further pray that a rule nisi issue herein directed to the defendants, T. L. James & Co., Inc., and L. J. N. Keliher, doing business as Keliher Construction Company, a partnership engaged in the construction of the Morganza Spillway Project, etc.'
"T. L. James & Co., Inc., and L. J. N. Keliher, and 'the alleged partnership of contractors namely T. L. James & Co., Inc., and L. J. N. Keliher, doing business as Keli-her Construction Company', with the allegation that they were not in any way submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of the court, filed exceptions of a general nature reading as follows:
" 'This court is without jurisdiction "ra-tione personse" over any of the respondents, which exception is hereby expressly pleaded.'
" 'And now reserving all rights under said exception "ratione personae" and in the alternative, and only in the event the said exception should be expressly overruled by this court, respondents further except to these proceedings for the reason that this court is without jurisdiction "ratione materiae" of the alleged cause of action proceeded upon.
" 'And now reserving all rights under said foregoing exceptions, and in the further alternative and only in the event both of said foregoing exceptions should be expressly overruled by this court, respondent further excepts to these proceedings for the reason that the petition filed herein fails to disclose or allege a cause of action against any of the respondents, and fails to state a right or cause of action against any of these respondents.'
"No evidence was offered in connection with these exceptions and they were argued and submitted and the court took same under advisement, after certain reservations were made, the trial of the rule on its merits proceeded with the understanding that the court would render his decision on the exceptions prior to his passing on the merits.
"According to their brief counsel for ex-ceptors base their plea or exception to the jurisdiction 'ratione Personae' on the contention (1) that Mr. L. J. N. Keliher was not cited and (2) that if defendants were sued as a partnership then there are no allegations in the petition showing that the partnership had but one establishment and that in the Parish of Pointe Coupee.
"As to the want of citation there is considerable jurisprudence to the effect that a want of citation is cured by the appearance of defendant in the suit for any other purpose than to allege want of citation. It is noted also that the prayer of the petition specifically seeks the issuance of a rule directed against T. L. James & Co., Inc., and L. J. N. Keliher, doing business as Keliher Construction Co., 'a partnership1, etc.,' that the petition alleges that the said members of the partnership became partners for the purpose of fulfilling the contract concerning the project mentioned and located in Pointe Coupee Parish and that work on said job had already begun. In other words, these allegations can be construed to mean only that said partnership had one establishment in this state and that it was located in the Parish of Pointe Coupee. Then the citation was directed to T. L. James & Co., Inc., and L. J. N. Keli-her, doing business as Keliher Construction Co., and each of them, one citation was actually personally served on one of the partners, T. L. James, President of T. L. James & Co., Inc., at his domicile at Rus-ton, La., and the other was personally served on Gordon Walker, superintendent on the job of Mr. Keliher. It is also observed that no personal judgment is sought in the present proceeding.
"In view of this situation it is obvious that the said partnership was properly cited. Authorities.
"1. Stanley v. Jones, 197 La. 627, 2 So.2d 45, ext. p. 48, citing authorities including: 'In City of New Orleans v. Walker, 23 La.Ann. 803, this court declared: "A want of citation is cured by the appearance of defendant in the suit for any other purpose than to allege the want of citation." '
"2. By appearing to except to the jurisdiction defendant waives the question of improper citation. Godchaux v. Texas & P. R. Co., 151 La. 955 [92 So. 398]; Bran-nin v. Clements [La.App.] 142 So. 621.
"3. O'Brien v. Delta Air Corp., 188 La. 911, 178 So. 489, at page 490: 'Inasmuch as no evidence was offered in support of the defendant's exception to the jurisdiction of the court, in this case, the question of jurisdiction depends upon the allegations of the plaintiffs' petition.'
"4. Courts should see that each exception should be made to perform the function properly appertaining to it and not be allowed to have substitute for it. Succession of Thompson, 191 La. 480, 186 So. 1.
"5. Service on one of members of partnership is sufficient to bring partnership into court: Klotz et al. v. Tru-Fruit Distributors et al. [La.App.] 173 So. 592; Cornille & De Blonde et al. v. R. G. Dun & Co., 143 La. 1045, 79 So. 855; Acts 1918, No. 179, § 1; and 1932, No. 48, § 1 (see especially '(4)' and '(12)'.
"6. See also the following: Underwood v. [Brook] Mays & Co. [La.App.] 146 So. 503; Dennistoun et al. v. Debuys et al., 6 Mart., N.S., 48; Posey v. Fargo, 187 La. 122, 174 So. 175; Phillips v. Paxton et al., 3 Mart., N.S., 39; J. P. Barnett Co., Inc., v. Ludeau, 171 La. 21, 129 So. 655.
"As to the exception to the jurisdiction ratione materiae, counsel state in their brief: 'The exception to the jurisdiction of the court ratione materiae was filed by us because at the time we were not clear as to whether or not plaintiffs intended to charge that the National Labor Relations Act had any application to the situation alleged by the plaintiffs to exist.' — 'Since at this time it seems clear that the plaintiffs are not seeking to invoke the provisions of the National Labor ^Relations Act, we shall not discuss any further exception to the jurisdiction ratione materiae'.
"According to the brief of counsel for exceptors, the exceptions of no right of action and no cause of action are predicated upon the assertion and assumption that the partnership was not sued. However, it appears from the petition and prayer thereof that the said partnership was sued herein.
"Therefore, in view of the authorities above cited and for the reasons stated, it is the opinion of the court that the pleas to the jurisdiction of the court ratione personae and ratione materiae, and the exceptions of no cause or right of action should be overruled, and judgment is rendered herein accordingly." See, also, Iddle v. Hamler Boiler & Tank Co., 132 La. 476, 61 So. 532, and State ex rel. Brenner v. Noe, Gov., et al., 186 La. 102, at page 107, par. 2, 171 So. 708.