Case Name: P. S. VICKNAIR vs. SOUTHSIDE PLANTATION CO.
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1913-02-24
Citations: 10 Teiss. 43
Docket Number: No. 5629
Parties: P. S. VICKNAIR vs. SOUTHSIDE PLANTATION CO.
Judges: Dufour, J.,'takes no part.
Reporter: Decisions, Court of Appeal, parish of Orleans (Teissier)
Volume: 10
Pages: 43–52

Head Matter:
No. 5629.
P. S. VICKNAIR vs. SOUTHSIDE PLANTATION CO.
Syllabus.
1. Amendments supplying mere omissions in pleadings may be allowed at any time before final judgment on exceptions aimed thereat.
2. Where a particular cause is assigned for the discharge of an employee, the justification must be confined to that one cause.
3. Where a party gives a reason for his conduct and decision touching anything in a controversy, he cannot after litigation is begun change his ground and put his conduct upon another and different consideration.
4. The peremptory refusal of an employee to obey an apparently reasonable order, without assigning any reason at the time, amounts to a defiance of authority sufficient to warrant his discharge, and his reasons will not thereafter be inquired into.
Appeal from the 28th Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson, No. 1075. Hon. P. E. Edrington, Judge.
F. T. Middleton, A. E. Billings, for plaintiff and ap- . pellee.
A. G. Brice, L. H. Marrero, Jr., A. W. Cooper, for defendant and appellant

Opinion:
His Honor,
JOHN ST. PAUL,
rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:
Plaintiff claimed a balance due him for salary, alleging a contract of employment for a year and a discharge without cause before the end of the term.
Defendant filed an exception of "no cause of.action" based upon the omission of some alleged essential averment touching the contract; and pending action on this exception plaintiff tendered and the Court allowed an amendment supplying the alleged omission.
We think the amendment was properly allowed. Amendments supplying mere omissions in pleadings may ;be allowed at any time before final'judgment on exceptions aimed thereat.
Reuther vs. Kansas City Milling Co., 2 Orleans Ct. of Appeal, 389.
Such amendments are clearly in furtherance of justice, since judgments based on exceptions of that nature constitute mere non-suits (8 Orleans Ct. App., 392), and do not end the controversy (119 La., 1064), which may always be renewed with the missing allegations supplied (47 An., 109).