Schroeder v. Collins, 37 So. 722 (La. 1904). · Go Syfert
Search
Schroeder v. Collins, 37 So. 722 (La. 1904). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
56 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Roger Salazar v. Stephanie Ortiz (fladistctapp, 2026-03-17)
Treatment trajectory · 1905 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1905 1965 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Roger Salazar v. Stephanie Ortiz
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
App. P. 9.110(k); Morrison v. Smolarick, 334 So. 3d 675 , 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022) (“A partition order directing the sale of property is final even when the court retains jurisdiction ‘for the purpose of adjusting, by a further decree, the accounts between the parties.’” (quoting Camp Phosphate Co. v. Anderson, 37 So. 722, 726 (Fla. 1904))). 2 purchase price and stands ready to pay the balance due.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) LISONEL PEREZ v. PEDRO A. JAIMOT AND MARILYN JAIMOT
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
A well-developed body of precedent holds that an order of partition is final at such time as the court directs the sale of the property. 1 See Camp Phosphate Co. v. Anderson, 37 So. 722, 726 (Fla. 1904) (holding that a decree which decides the right of the property at issue is considered final when an order directs the sale of land “and the complainant is entitled to have such decree carried immediately into execution”) (citation omitted); Lovett v. Lovett, 112 So. 768, 783 (Fla. 1927) (“The final decree in the present case is a decree of the court dated September 30, 1925, confirming th…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Morris v. Garcia
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
Camp Phosphate Co. v. Anderson, 48 Fla. 226 , 37 So. 722, 726 (1904) (holding that a verdict which decides the right of the property at issue is considered final when an order directs the sale of land “ ‘and the complainant is entitled to have such [verdict] carried immediately into execution’”) (emphasis added) (citation omitted); see also Winburn v. Lemings, 813 So.2d 289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (finding that a judgment ordering partition of land was “not a final appeal-able order”).
cited Cited "see" Winburn v. Lemings
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Camp Phosphate Co. v. Anderson, 48 Fla. 226 , 37 So. 722, 725, 726 (1904).
cited Cited "see" Dallam v. Sanchez
unknown court · 1908 · signal: see · confidence high
See Camp Phosphate Co. v. Anderson, 48 Fla. 226 , 37 South.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Foreman v. Abbott
Fla. · 1928 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Camp Phosphate Co. v. Anderson, 48 Fla. 226 , 37 Sou. 722 .
SCHROEDER
v.
COLLINS
No. 15,493.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Jan 4, 1904.
37 So. 722
Fred Deibel, Jr., for appellant.
Land.
Cited by 51 opinions  |  Published
LAND, J.

The Court of Appeal held that a railroad switchman is a “laborer” in the sense of article 644 of the Code of Practice, as amended by Act No. 79, p. 123, of 1876, exempting “laborer’s wages” from seizure under execution. We see no error in this ruling.

All manual employments require a certain degree of intelligence and skill. It is true that we have held that a locomotive engineer was not a “laborer” in the sense of the statute (State ex rel. Grocery Co. v. Judge, 108 La. 512, 32 South. 433, 58 L. R. A. 407, 92 Am. St. Rep. 392), but we did so because we considered him as a “mechanical engineer,” discharging highly important duties, requiring the exercise of skill, expertness, and judgment, and as occupying a posi[*779] tion of authority in the management of the train.

To hold that a switchman was not a laborer would be tantamount to denying the benefit of the exemption to all railroad employes performing hard manual labor.

It is therefore ordered that this application be denied, applicant to pay all costs of same.