Mayville Canal Co. v. Lake Arthur Rice Milling Co.

Citations

• 119 La. 447
• 44 So. 260
• 1907 La. LEXIS 502

Syllabus

<p>On Motion to Dismiss.</p> <p>1. Appeal — Citation—Service.</p> <p>There was a continuous session of court to August 8, 1906.</p> <p>On that day an appeal was granted in open ■court.</p> <p>The court, in accordance with, and as possible under, its order regarding its terms, could sit in continuous session.</p> <p>If there was a subsequent term, the appeal was made returnable on the 29th of September, 1906.</p> <p>From the later date time was extended to •October, 1906.</p> <p>A citation of appeal was duly served before the extension had elapsed. This was all-sufficient, as citation was in time.</p> <p>On the Merits.</p> <p>•2. Contracts — Action — Pleading — Evidence.</p> <p>Plaintiff claimed damages from the defendant for an alleged violation of the contract on which it declared on the specific ground set up. The action was not one for an account. Defendant unsuccessfully objected to the introduction of testimony on any other issue than that raised by the petition. The ruling of the ■court on that point was erroneous, and all evidence outside of that issue is disregarded.</p> <p>3. Corporations — Authority of Manager-Ratification.</p> <p>The district court rejected plaintiff’s demand, and that judgment is affirmed. The defendant acted under instructions from plaintiff’s manager, who had been permitted by the ■corporation to have full control for years over its general business. It claimed to have reserved in the contract referred to “the right to say when its rice should be milled and sold.” It never as a corporation exercised that reserved right, but permitted its manager to determine for it when this should be done. It is too late for the plaintiff under the circumstances to question, to defendant’s prejudice, the authority of its manager to act in the premises.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>