Durke v. Crane
Citations
- 112 La. 156
- 36 So. 306
- 1904 La. LEXIS 373
Syllabus
<p>APPEALABLE ORDEE — HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION-APPEAL — REVIEW.</p> <p>1. When three horses have been seized, and judgment has been rendered ordering two of them be released as exempt from seizure under the homestead law, without specifying which two, and a rule has been taken to supplement the judgment by deciding which two of the horses should be released, held, that the judgment on this rule is appealable to the Supreme Court, it involving a homestead right, and it being, besides, merely incidental to the main judgment, which admittedly was appealable to the Supreme Court, as involving a homestead right.</p> <p>2. If the judgment appealed from was founded on the fact that one of the horses was not a work horse, but an unbroken two year old, it was correct, for the constitutional exemption calls for work horses, not unbroken colts.</p> <p>3. The judgment appealed from, in so far as founded on the facts, cannot be reviewed by this court in the absence of the facts, and can only be affirmed as presumably correct.</p> <p>4. Either none or all of the testimony must be taken down in writing, and the court may refuse the request to have the testimony reduced to writing, if not made at the beginning of the trial.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concluding there was purposeful availment where defendant solicited plaintiff for employment in Massachusetts and negotiated plaintiff’s employment contract for work based in Massachusetts
- finding jurisdiction under subsection 3(a) based on an employment agreement negotiated over phone and email, while plaintiff was in the Commonwealth, for services that would be rendered in the Commonwealth
- Florida defendant allegedly breached employment contract with Massachusetts plaintiff after negotiating contract with him while he was home in Massachusetts and then entering into contract that envisioned his performance of work from Massachusetts
- Florida defendant’s “voluntary actions in [Massachusetts] – entering into an employment contract with a Massachusetts resident that envisioned performance in the forum – certainly rendered suit in the forum [for breach of that contract] foreseeable”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Provosty
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.