Action by S. J. Daly against Richard Brock. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals suspensively, and moves for rule to show cause why the inscription of the judgment should not be canceled.
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
““ * * * The right of a defendant to have such an inscription canceled, and the jurisdiction of this court to order the cancellation, in a case here pending on appeal, have already been considered and maintained. Cluseau v. Wagner, 126 La. 375 , 52 So. 547 ; Dannenmann & Charlton v. Charlton, 113 La. 276 , 36 So. 965 .””
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Rule made absolute · Decided 1913-06-30
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently October 1985
23 state decisions
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.
¶2[1] Plaintiff obtained a moneyed judgment against defendant, from which defendant perfected a suspensive appeal to this court, the transcript having been lodged here in July, 1912. He now appears, alleging that the judgment appealed from has- been inscribed in the mortgage office, and operates to prevent his disposing of certain real estate of which he is the owner; and he has ruled the plaintiff and the recorder of mortgages to show cause why the inscription should not be canceled. The recorder admits that the judgment is inscribed, as alleged, but disclaims any personal interest in the matter. Plaintiff admits that it was he who caused the inscription, and alleges that it was done before the appeal was taken. The right of a defendant to have such an inscription canceled, and the jurisdiction of this court to order the cancellation, in a case here pending on appeal, have already been considered and maintained. Cluseau v. Wagner, 126 La. 375, 52 South. 547; Dannenmann v. Charlton, 113 La. 276, 36 South. 965.
¶3Let the rule be made absolute; the recorder directed to cancel the inscription complained of, and S. J. Daly, the plaintiff in the suit, pay the costs of the cancellation and of this proceeding.
¶5[2] Plaintiff sues defendant for $5,000 for damages for slander. There was judgment in favor of plaintiff, and against defendant, in the sum of $500, and the defendant appeals.
¶6Plaintiff alleges that defendant denounced him as a sneak, charging that he had stolen certain lumber belonging to him, the defendant.
¶7Defendant answered, alleging that plaintiff had taken and used his, the defendant’s, lumber, knowing it to be his, and denied that he used any language which was not justified by the facts.
¶8The testimony of witnesses for plaintiff and defendant shows that the defendant used the language complained of by plaintiff, while it fails to show any justification, or probable cause, for said charges on the part of defendant towards plaintiff.
¶9The trial judge, who saw and heard the witnesses, considered the slander of plaintiff by defendant to have been sufficiently proved; and we see no reason for disturbing his finding. It is in accordance with the testimony of the several witnesses examined on the trial of the cause.
