REEVES v. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS

No. 42434.

83 So.2d 889 (1955)

228 La. 653

Cecil Bates REEVES v. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, State of Louisiana.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

November 7, 1955.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

D. Ross Banister, Philip K. Jones, Glenn S. Darsey, Louis S. Quinn, Roy M. Talley, Baton Rouge, W. Crosby Pegues, Jr., Gen. Counsel, Louisiana Dept. of Highways, Baton Rouge, for defendant, appellant, applicant.

McIntosh, Hester & Gilfoil, Lake Providence, for plaintiff, appellee, respondent.


SIMON, Justice.

The Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, having refused to consider relator's application for rehearing, it applied for writs to this court, which were granted.

A judgment adverse to relator was rendered by the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, on April 14, 1955. Reeves v. State, 80 So.2d 206. Relator received notice of this judgment by registered mail on April 15, and its application for rehearing was filed on April 29. The Court of Appeal refused to consider the application on the ground that it was not timely filed within the delay allowed by Act No. 51 of 1954, LSA-R.S. 13:4446.

As pointed out in the case of Mid-State Tile Company v. Chaudoir, 228 La. 634, 83 So.2d 654 the day on which the notice of judgment was received by relator is not to be counted in computing the 14-day delay, and the holding in that case is controlling here. See also Lacaze v. Hardee, 199 La. 566, 6 So.2d 663, and Newsom v. Caldwell & McCann, La.App. 1st Cir., 51 So.2d 393. Therefore, since relator's application was filed on April 29, it was timely and should have been considered by the Court of Appeal.

For the reasons assigned, the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, is ordered and directed to consider and determine relator's application for a rehearing in this case.* Respondent is to pay all costs in this court; all other costs are to await final determination of the case.

FootNotes


* Rehearing denied Jan. 9, 1956.

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases