Case Name: Louisiana Molasses Company vs. Louis LeSassier, et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1900-06
Citations: 52 La. Ann. 1768
Docket Number: No. 13,428
Parties: Louisiana Molasses Company vs. Louis LeSassier, et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 52
Pages: 1768–1769

Head Matter:
No. 13,428.
Louisiana Molasses Company vs. Louis LeSassier, et al.
Syllabus.
Tlie judgment is affirmed at appellee’s costs (for reasons given in the principal decision) except as to the two amendments made in the judgment in the principal suit.
APPEAL from the Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans' — Ellis, J.
Andrew H. Wilson for Plaintiff, Appellee.
Dari & Kernan for Brakenridge Lumber Co., Ltd., and Joseph Sutton & Son, Defendants, Appellants.
Purnell M. Milner for Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, surety, Appellee.
Bernard, McQloslcey for Cole Manufacturing Co., La Pierre & Peray, Manion & Co., A. Ledoux, Agent; Salmen Brick & Lumber Co., and William H. Hankins, Defendants, Appellees.
Saunders & Gurley for Ong-IIiller & Company, Defendants, Appellees.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Breaux, J.
The Brackenridge Lumber Company, parties to the proceedings in the case of the Louisiana Molasses Company, Limited, vs. Louis LeSassier ei als., has taken a separate appeal and brings up its claim to this court in a separate transcript of appeal.
The appellant in this appeal insists that a judgment should be rendered against the Louisiana Molasses Company condemning it to increase the fund deposited in court by the amounts of various payments made on the asserted over-estimates of its architect, and that it should be condemned to pay the costs of the proceedings. We have already passed upon the issues presented by the foregoing. Our views in the cited case are the law of the case. The facts and questions being similar, our conclusions must be the same in both cases as relates to the law and the facts found.
It is, therefore, adjudged, ordered and decreed that the judgment appealed from be affirmed at appellants' costs, save in the respect in which it is amended by our decree in the cited case — at appellees' costs.
Rehearing refused.