Moreira v. Schwan
Citations
- 113 La. 643
- 37 So. 542
- 1904 La. LEXIS 685
Syllabus
<p>JOINT OWNERS — EIGHTS AND POWERS — ACCOUNTING — ACTION POE POSSESSION — BENTS OP JOINT PROPERTY.</p> <p>1. Where the joint owners of a storehouse cannot agree as to its administration, and the evidence shows that the joint owner in possession has charged himself with the full rental value of the property, and expended same for the common benefit in defraying expenses of cultivating a plantation jointly owned by the parties, plaintiffs’ remedy is by suit for a partition and settlement of accounts, or for a division of profits, and not by action for possession and to recover their proportion of the rents of the storehouse, with damages.</p> <p>On Rehearing.</p> <p>2. An amount due by a joint owner for rent of property which he has used, without objection of his co-owners of property, toward defraying the expenses of other property, a plantation owned in common, will remain on the “plantation account” in settlement of plantation affairs to be accounted for.</p> <p>3. The owner in possession had no right to continue applying the rent toward paying expenses after suit brought, fully notifying him that they did not consent to the use of the rental as made, but were opposed to it.</p> <p>4. Where the facts show that a joint owner of .a property is holding on to rental without right, and applying it to a purpose against the wish of the owners, they are entitled to judgment for the rental from the day that the joint ■owner, who is lessee, is notified that he must cease thus to apply the fund.</p> <p>5. After notice they were funds for which the joint owner, lessee as well as agent, is liable.</p> <p>6. If a joint owner wrongfully confiscates a joint owner’s rent, the latter may sue to recover the rent and be reinstated in his rights as joint owner.</p> <p>7. At first the joint owner used the property, ■of which he afterwards became tenant, with due regard to the rights of his co-owners. Afterward he applied the rent to pay the expenses ■on another property also owned in c
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- recognizing that “an email address does not qualify as a location or place where compliance is required under Rule 45”
- recognizing that “an email address does not qualify as a location 22 or place where compliance is required under Rule 45”
- rejecting that approach 5 because it “requires a district court . . . to first resolve a substantive geographical limits 6 issue under Rules 45(c) simply to decide if it is the court with authority to decide a 7 Rule 45(d)(2) or 45(d)(3) motion—including a Rule 45(d)(3)(ii
- “[T]hat Defendants’ preference was electronic transmission to [counsel’s] email does not change what the face of the Subpoenas themselves direct.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Breaux, Land, Original, Stated
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.