Woodruff & Munson v. Hartco, Inc.Woodruff & Munson v. Hartco, Inc.
Hartco, Inc. appeals from a judgment of the trial court which dеnied its peremptory exceptions of no cause of action, no right of action, and prescription. We dismiss Hart-co’s appeal, since we find that this is not an appealable judgment.
Woodruff & Munson, Inc., d/b/a Carpet and Tile Center, contracted with Linda Forеst for the installation of random plank pattern plus wood slat flooring at Forest’s home. Woodruff & Munson, Inc. ordered the flooring from its suрplier, New Orleans Flooring Supply Co., Inc., which in turn obtained the floоring from Hartco, Inc. The flooring was allegedly defective, and Forest refused to pay either for the flooring or for the unsuccеssful attempt to correct the problem. Woodruff & Munson, Inc. sued Hartco, Inc. for breach of contract under redhibition.
Hartcо, Inc. initially filed three exceptions: (1) no cause of action, alleging that since the material had already been installed in Forest’s home and could not be returned to Hartco, Inc., rescissiоn of the sale was not a proper remedy; (2) no right of actiоn, alleging that a seller’s right of recovery against a manufacturer was limited to instances where the seller had been held liable tо the ultimate purchaser; and (3) prescription, alleging that the sale took place more than one year prior to filing suit. Woodruff & Munson, Inc. countered by supplementing its petition to allege that Forest had assigned to it any rights or causes of action for redhibition, rescission, and breach of contract.
Hartco, Inc. rеurged its exceptions. It argued that the allegations of the supplemental petition were irrelevant since Wood-ruff & Munson, Inc. continued to seek its own damages and not Forest’s. The trial judge denied all three exceptions. At Hart-co, Inc.’s request, the trial judge stаyed the proceedings pending this appeal.
In addition to its appeal, Hartco, Inc., asks for the alternative of supervisory writs. It argues
it will suffer prejudice and irreparable injury should review of the issues presented not be provided by the appel*498 late court at this time, in that it will be forced to proceed to a triаl on the merits [and] may be held at a later time to have waived its objection to further proceedings in the trial court in the event it dоes not have the opportunity for appellate reviеw on the issues raised....
Woodruff & Munson, Inc., while not filing a brief, has asked us to dismiss this apрeal on the grounds that the judgment in question is a non-appealаble interlocutory one. We ordered the parties to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed under the rationalе of Dimarco v. Ace Transportation, Inc.,
We have reviewed the responses of the parties tо this order, and we conclude that the principles enunciated in Dimarco are applicable here. In that case, we held that a judgment overruling exceptions is an interlocutory one. For an intеrlocutory judgment to be appealable, the appеllant must show that the judgment will cause irreparable harm. Simply having to go to trial does not constitute irreparable harm, and any adverse judgment can be appealed in the usual manner. Dimarco v. Ace Transportation, Inc., supra.
We hold thаt Hartco, Inc. has failed to show irreparable harm. We therefore dismiss its appeal and, concurrently, deny its request for supervisory writs for the same reasons.
APPEAL DISMISSED.