Jurisprudence prior to 1991 was basically consistent that an action for breach of contract had to be brought in the defendant's domiciliary parish. See, Morein v. Fontenot, 544 So.2d 118 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1989); Smith v. Adger, 126 So.2d 377 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 1960). On occasion, both breach of contract and tort (quasi-offenses) were alleged and the courts permitted the exception of article 74 to control.

In our opinion, our brothers of the Second Circuit Court of Appeal were correct in holding, in Interim Television Corporation v. Cappel et al., that a suit for the enforcement of an obligation to pay a sum of money due under the specific terms of a contract is not a suit for damages as contemplated by paragraph 9 of Code of Practice, Article 165. This also was clearly the reasoning of our Supreme Court in Weber v. H. G. Hill Stores, supra. See also the very recent case of Smith v. Adger, La. App., 126 So.2d 377. Before concluding, it is perhaps appropriate to mention that the judgment appealed from was rendered before January 1, 1961, on which date paragraph 9 of Code of Practice, Article 165 was superseded by the new LSA-Code of Civil Procedure, Article 74.