Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

13 La. 412

Howe v. Manning's

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided April 15, 1839

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1839-04-15

This is an action against the curator of the estate of John F. Manning, deceased, in which the plaintiff claims the sum of four hundred and thirty dollars, for keeping and taking care of the steam-boat Romeo, belonging to the estate of the deceased, at the special instance and request of the curator. The account is annexed, and states, that he had charge of the boat from the 6th July to the 30th September, 1837, making in all eighty-six days, at five dollars per day.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1839-04-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently February 1928

6 state decisions

301839184018501860187018801890190019101920decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Rost, J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2The plaintiff sues to recover wages at the rate of -five dollars per day for services as keeper of a steamer belonging to a succession administered by the defendant.

¶3The defendant does not deny the services, but differs with the plaintiff in relation to their value.

¶4The witnesses examined on the trial stated that the plaintiff’s services were worth from six to eight dollars per day; the judge did not believe them, but, knowing that the same services could be obtained from other persons for three dollars per day, gave judgment in favor of the plaintiff at tha.t rate; being dissatisfied, he appealed; and if has been contended for him, in this court, that the judge was bound to allow him five dollars per day, agreeably to the prayer of his petition, because all the witnesses had stated that his services were worth from six to eight dollars.

¶5We have neither the power nor the wish to compel judges to believe the witnesses examined before them in the trial of causes. If, in this instance, the judge knew, of his own knowledge, that, the witnesses were not telling the truth, he could not believe them; and the case stood before him as if, no evidence being adduced, he had allowed the plaintiff the usual compensation in such cases, an allowance which he can always make with the consent of the curator.

¶6The reasons which induced the judge of the Probate Court to disregard the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the fact itself that he did disregard it, have great weight with us. We are satisfied that the compensation was ample, and that the plaintiff has no reasonable ground of complaint against the judgment.

¶7It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the Court of Probates be affirmed, with costs.

/13/la/412 · .json · Public domain