Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

160 So. 2d 791

Docket No. 1043.

Smith v. Doyle

Joseph SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clarence DOYLE and Johnnie Doyle, Defendants-Appellants.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided February 18, 1964.

Louisiana Court of Appeal · decided 1964-02-18

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““ * * * Under LSA-Code of Civil Procedure, Art. 1702, ‘judgment of default must be confirmed by proof of the demand sufficient to establish a prima facie case.’ But this prima facie case must be established by competent evidence. Plaintiff assumes the burden of proving the essential allegations in his petition as fully as if they had been specifically denied. He must make his claim certain; to make it probable is not enough. Carr v. Williams, La.App., 145 So.2d 611 , and cases cited therein.””

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Wall v. Sun Insurance Co. of New York, 383 So. 2d 1308 - Jones v. Ledet

“"The only competent evidence in the record herein concerns the negligence of the defendant. However, the amount of damages was not established by competent evidence. The only evidence as to damages was a repair estimate of an automobile dealer, a letter from an attending physician, and a bill for a clinic. There were no witnesses to corroborate these offerings. All of them are hearsay and, when introduced without a proper foundation and explanation, are insufficient to establish a prima facie case for a default judgment." 160 So.2d 792 -3”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Blackwell v. Daigle

Relies on 145 So. 2d 611 - Carr v. Williams

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1964-02-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently January 1990

19 state decisions

901964197019801990decided

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 →

¶1*792 Mouser & Mouser, by Holmes M. Mouser, Oakdale, for defendants-appellants.

¶2Rogers & McHale, by Jack Rogers, Lake Charles, for plaintiff-appellee.

¶3Robert Collings, Lake Charles, for garnishee-defendant.

¶4Before FRUGE, HOOD and CULPEPPER, JJ.

¶5FRUGE, Judge.

¶6This is an appeal from a default judgment.

¶7On April 20, 1963, plaintiff was involved in an accident in Lake Charles when his automobile was struck by Johnnie Doyle, driver of a truck owned by defendant Clarence Doyle. Plaintiff sued Johnnie Doyle and Clarence Doyle. Clarence Doyle was served by domiciliary service in Vernon Parish. Thereafter, a default judgment was rendered. Plaintiff confirmed the default judgment against Clarence Doyle and was awarded $3,013.53. Although notice of signing of the default judgment was not served on Clarence Doyle as was required by law, a writ of fieri facias was obtained and trucks owned by defendant Clarence Doyle were seized; also, garnishment proceedings were instituted against Guth Dairy, Inc. Defendant Clarence Doyle then instituted the present proceedings, requesting that the writ of fieri facias and garnishment be set aside and enjoined since no notice of judgment had been served on him as required under Article 1913 of the LSA-Code of Civil Procedure. He further moved for a new trial, alleging that the default judgment rendered was contrary to the law and the evidence. The trial judge ordered the writ of fieri facias and garnishment set aside, but refused to grant a motion for a new trial.

¶8The motion for a new trial should have been granted because there was not sufficient evidence to sustain the confirmation of the default judgment. Under LSA-Code of Civil Procedure, Art. 1702, "judgment of default must be confirmed by proof of the demand sufficient to establish a prima facie case." But this prima facie case must be established by competent evidence. Plaintiff assumes the burden of proving the essential allegations in his petition as fully as if they had been specifically denied. He must make his claim certain; to make it probable is not enough. Carr v. Williams, La.App., 145 So.2d 611, and cases cited therein.

¶9The only competent evidence in the record herein concerns the negligence of the defendant. However, the amount of damages was not established by competent evidence. The only evidence as to damages was a repair estimate of an automobile dealer, a letter from an attending physician, and a bill for a clinic. There were no witnesses to corroborate these offerings. All of them are hearsay and, when introduced without *793 a proper foundation and explanation, are insufficient to establish a prima facie case for a default judgment. Carr v. Williams, supra.

¶10For the foregoing reasons the default judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Costs of this appeal are assessed to plaintiff; assessment of all other costs is to await final disposition.

¶11Reversed and remanded.

/160/so2d/791 · .json · Public domain