Court Opinion

ID: 9691859
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 15:21:22.979114+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:27.425109
License: Public Domain

SANDERS, Justice
(dissenting).
The majority holds that since the Court must interpret the contract, the case must be tried on the merits rather than disposed of on the dilatory exception of prematurity. The holding, in my opinion, is unsound.
Article 930 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure provides:
“On the trial of the dilatory exception, evidence may be introduced to support or controvert any of the objections pleaded, when the grounds thereof do not appear from the petition.”
At the hearing on the dilatory exception, the parties offered evidence. It consisted both of testimony and an admission of fact and genuineness of documents. The contract between the parties was included among the documents admitted in evidence.
Since the contract is in evidence and relevant to the question of prematurity, it must be considered by the Court in ruling on the exception. LSA-C.C.P. Art. 930. See Sugar Field Oil Co. v. Carter, 207 La. *213453, 21 So.2d 495; D’Antoni v. Employers’ Liability Assur. Corp., 213 La. 67, 34 So. 2d 378. The majority, in my opinion, is in error in referring this matter to the merits. I express no opinion at this time as to whether or not the exception of prematurity is well founded.
For the reasons assigned, I respectfully dissent.