From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bell v. Dewitt

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit
Nov 22, 1946
27 So. 2d 924 (La. Ct. App. 1946)

Opinion

No. 2829.

November 22, 1946.

Appeal from Twenty-first Judicial District Court, Parish of Tangipahoa; Robt. S. Ellis, Jr., Judge.

On motion for rehearing.

Rehearing denied.

For former opinion, see 27 So.2d 433.

Reid Reid, of Hammond, for appellant.

Mary Purser, of Amite, and Benj. W. Miller, of Bogalusa, for appellee.


Plaintiff appellant, in his application for rehearing, contends that we erred in three particulars, to-wit: 1. In holding that the timber had not been cut by the Lake Superior Piling Company about 1912. 2. In holding that the hardwood timber was merchantable on June 20, 1902, the date of sale from Richard Brown to William L. Jay. 3. In not sustaining the plea of prescription of one year against the claim of the Lake Superior Piling Company.

As to the first two contentions, after a careful review of the record, we find no error committed by us.

As to the third contention, after a careful search of the record we fail to find wherein the plaintiff filed such a plea. Naturally, we did not and could not consider such a plea. The plea of prescription must be specially pleaded and the plea cannot be supplied, ex officio, by the Court.

Rehearing refused.


Summaries of

Bell v. Dewitt

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit
Nov 22, 1946
27 So. 2d 924 (La. Ct. App. 1946)
Case details for

Bell v. Dewitt

Case Details

Full title:BELL v. DEWITT et al

Court:Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit

Date published: Nov 22, 1946

Citations

27 So. 2d 924 (La. Ct. App. 1946)

Citing Cases

Succession of True

Finally, we deny Dr. Rubin's request for damages raised in his answer to the appeal. No demand, in…

Parker v. Allums

It is well settled that prescription must be expressly and specially pleaded and cannot be supplied by the…