*1 791 n of obligation money ma- Tlie a fixed date. on payment one tben extended and its tured year, was note which the renewal to witness filed, ex- the suit this was executed. When ques- expired. There is no had also tension being mature; obligation there tion about the question, as so far defendant serious can nobe concerned,, cor- sued on does that note is rectly the obligation, origihal the the evidence probably first of was evidence which written destroyed. The delivered to defendant and/or way or man- giving in no of the renewal note beyond postponing changed the the ner debt payment. time its for Corpus following quotation from 8 The Wilkinson, Wilkinson, Lewis of Shreve- & correctly think, the

Juris, 443, p. covers we port, appellant. for point: “Extinguishment of Old law this on Boone, appel- Shreveport, Wm. for C. of merely given in renew n a is Debt. Where note lee. payment, re in the and not al of note another original extinguish debt the not newal does DREW, Judge. by except way any change the debt nor in (cid:127) Plaintiff, Floyd Duke, suit instituted this S. payment; postponing and as a the time for against Dengail Oil & Com- defendants Gas same general rights to the the holder is entitled rule ¿Etna Casualty Surety pany the & Com- and proceeding he was as if and remedies insurer, alleged pany, its to com- recover note.” on the same Compensa- pensation under the Workmen’s ap- judgment assigned, the For reasons the 1914, (Act No. 20 as tion amended) of Louisiana of Law aside, pealed this is re- and case from is set period weeks, 400 at the for a of pro- for further to the court manded lower week, per together medi- rate of with $18.20 ap- by ceedings, of law. Costs as authorized expenses in $250. the sum of cal by peal paid defendant. be to general filed de- Both of the defendants allegations plaintiff’s petition, the of nials to tried, re- and these issues the case was on judgment plaintiff sulting in in favor of and a Dengail against Company, as the Oil & Gas prayed for, subject, however, to of a credit already paid. $46.80, compensation The de- ¿Etna OIL & GAS CO. et al. DENGAIL plaintiff against DUKE v. the the mands of Casualty reject- Company No. 4786. & Insurance were decision, the Den- From this defendant ed. gail Appeal of Louisiana. Second of Court appealed Company has to this Oil & Gas Circuit. appealed Plaintiff not from the court. has 2, March 1934. dismissing judgment the court his of lower ¿Etna Casualty against the & Insurance suit Company. testimony that an accident oc- The discloses 2, 1933, plaintiff he curred to on June while weigh- carrying pipe one of a 4-inch was end ing approximately three or four hundred employee carrying pounds. A fellow the oth- dropped of the er and his end end stumbled caught causing plaintiff pipe, be in to a strain jerked by falling pipe. the He immediate- and injury ly complained to of his the back. He day heavy that more work and has did no since.

not worked compensation per week, amount The of due, disputed, any any is not nor is there if is *2 792 any way case, plaintiff eL in in no was there dispute was the and kind work tlie of as to justify by operation the find- of fort to performing, made defendant in the was which injured ing well, in of this ill of insurer’s doctor. Because were that if he an and oil advice, deprived compensable. plaintiff treat- accident, The was of the be it would said needed, same, and, testimony time his con- at the ment because of that discloses medical suffering plaintiff a as render his from dition has become such to was trial the of they joint recovery and was than were chances for much less sacro-iliac strain of the left discharged. performing labor the incapacitated at Under manual the time he was from testimony, that, plaintiff kind; any of the dis- if had it is that the duration clear of ability very treatment, dependent given proper entire- like- been the and uncertain was today ly re- ly upon he the treatment be a well man and kind of medical he would the plaintiff necessity that if is now of this suit obviated. He further discloses It ceived. it, immediately badly properly after in must have treated need of treatment and been had injury. possibly injury, well. been from If have he is to recover his would if given ever the he uncertain, disability treatment, possible proper we that is it is of As the duration the any period years upon period fix definite two to within a of six months to not are called compensa- fully recover, that allowed and it is shown time he be will should he of by cost at him will the treatment needed tion. general recognize the rule least $250. We principal is that made defense The unless that medical fees cannot be recovered injured plaintiff in an acci in back his was actually obligations have been incurred or 18, 1933, causal April is no and there dent on same, peculiar for the facts but due to made 1933, 2, June the act of between connection plaintiff case, is, was de- to this that that disability. present and the prived of of treatment to the ill advice due employ 18 n April in of de- while the On defendant, physician and that treat- of the fendant, plaintiff slightly his back strained absolutely necessary, cost ment which will is days by or ten for week and was treated a $250, we think this him the full amount of pronounced physician, and well. defendant’s exception general and is an the rule to case plaintiff paid compensation did nor was No to this item. that he is entitled recover on any his from He continued time work. lose heavy appeal pray- has Plaintiff answered the accident of labor until the manual ing damages appeal. We do for for frivolous 2, 1933, un- tjme he was after which June justify not think this such a case as to an undisputed This fact is suffi- to work. able appeal. award for frivolous away and for this defense to do with cient judgment It therefore follows that the of. disability plaintiff’s present is find that us to affirmed, the lower court is with costs. April not due to the accident of June 2d of and took this view the The lower court of 18th. part Judge, MILLS, that dissents from of plaintiff, judgment for and awarded as case allowing judgment $250 for medical ex- the penses prayed for. obligated for. not incurred or The seriously complains of the Defendant right to under the Workmen’s Com- recover bills, hospital of for medical and $250 award statutory. purely pensation dis- Law is The by plaintiff. not been incurred which have by is courts limited its terms as cretion of the Immediately accident, the defendant’s after construed. physician plaintiff for treated several weeks Company, In Burrows Arizola Petroleum v. relief, giving was when and the treatment 704, App. La. this court held: 7 by physician plaintiff examined the for was injured employee an the act is en- “Under insurer who notified defendant defendant’s surgical expenses not titled to medical and nothing wrong plaintiff’s that there was with exceeding spends But unless he or $250.00. kidney and that trouble was a .af back his. obligated that for much he cannot becomes by Acting not the fection caused accident. any event, In he can- recover that amount. advice, stopped paying this on defendant com proves.” than he not recover more pensation plaintiff and furnished with no finding being recognized medical treatment.

more The of in as correct in This rule the physician kidney majority opinion, surer’s as to the I do not trouble see how we can clearly unjustified. it, strong depart erroneous and was It from matter is no how the significant testify equities that may doctor failed this to be.