The case involved the State Department of Revenue seeking to collect a power tax under Act 25 of the Second Extra Session of 1935, as amended, on steam engines and a boiler used by oil producers at wells in the Jennings Oil Field. The defendants used electric power for regular pumping operations but maintained the steam equipment solely for infrequent repairs such as pulling stuck pipe, sucker rods, or pumps. The trial court dismissed the suits, holding that the equipment was exempt from the tax, and the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed that ruling. The court reasoned that the statute taxes only prime movers used in the conduct of the business but expressly exempts machinery for stand-by or emergency purposes, and applying the tax here would impose an unreasonable burden given the equipment's limited and occasional use.
The case involved a defendant charged with manufacturing four bottles of beer in violation of Section 1 of a Jackson Parish police jury ordinance that banned the production of alcoholic beverages containing more than 0.5% alcohol by volume. The defendant admitted the conduct but argued that the ordinance exceeded the authority granted by the state's Local Option Law, which had been implemented via a parish election prohibiting only the business of producing or manufacturing such liquors. The Louisiana Supreme Court determined that Section 1 of the ordinance was ultra vires because it prohibited individual manufacture beyond the scope of the election and the enabling statute, unlike Section 2 which aligned with the delegated powers. As a result, the court invalidated Section 1, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered the defendant discharged, distinguishing precedents that equated isolated acts with business activity.
Clara Thompson sued Vestal Lumber & Mfg. Co. on behalf of her two minor children to recover damages and workers' compensation after their father, her unmarried partner, was killed in a work accident allegedly caused by the company's negligence. The suit was brought under Civil Code Article 2315 for wrongful death and under the Workmen's Compensation Act, but the children were born out of concubinage and had never been formally acknowledged by their father. The trial court sustained exceptions of no cause or right of action and dismissed the suit, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court also affirmed, holding that Article 2315 applies only to legitimate or legitimated children and that unacknowledged illegitimate children are not legal dependents or "children" under the compensation statute because they have no recognized family relations under the Civil Code. The court therefore concluded the plaintiff lacked any actionable claim on behalf of the children.
The case involved defendants prosecuted in the City Court of Bogalusa for gambling at cards under Ordinance No. 79, which prohibited various forms of gambling in public and private places including hotels. The defendants moved to quash the affidavits, arguing the ordinance was unconstitutional and exceeded the city's charter authority, which only permitted closing gambling houses. The trial court convicted them, but on appeal the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the ordinance was ultra vires because the city's charter under Act 14 of 1914 did not authorize prohibiting gambling games, only closing gambling houses, and reversed the convictions, sustaining the motion to quash.
This case involved a summary eviction proceeding brought by landlords against their tenant under a disputed lease agreement, where the landlords sought possession after giving notice to vacate and the tenant claimed a lease term extending until 1946. The trial court ruled in favor of the landlords, ordering the tenant to vacate, after which the tenant appealed. The landlords then moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely, arguing it was filed more than 24 hours after the judgment under the applicable statutes governing eviction appeals. The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the appellees bore the burden of proving the appeal was filed outside the strict 24-hour window but failed to establish the exact timing of the judgment or the appeal order with sufficient certainty, as the record showed only approximate times and the bond was filed at 11:35 a.m. on the day after judgment.
This case involved a husband's suit for divorce from his wife on the ground of living separate and apart for more than two years, with disputes over custody of their 11-year-old daughter, child support, and attorney's fees. The court granted the divorce, awarded permanent custody of the child to the mother, ordered the father to pay $30 per month in child support, denied alimony to the wife, and dismissed the request for attorney's fees. The divorce was uncontested and supported by the undisputed separation period exceeding two years. Custody went to the mother because the father lacked his own home and had limited availability due to work, while the mother was deemed fit with family support available. Support was set at $30 based on the father's demonstrated ability to pay and the child's needs, alimony was denied due to the wife's employment income, and attorney's fees were rejected for lack of supporting evidence.