Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

9 La. 161

Summers v. Baumgard

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided February 15, 1836

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1836-02-15

This is an action to recover a horse and dray, and four boxes and a basket of porter and ale, which the plaintiff alleges the defendant illegally and wrongfully took from him, and refuses to deliver up, although amicably requested. He prays judgment for the delivery of said property, and one thousand dollars in damages, for the illegal detention thereof.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently May 1998

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“obstinate determination to take justice into his own hands”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 712 So. 2d 88 - Adams v. JE Merit Const., Inc.

“make him pay something in the shape of smart money.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 712 So. 2d 88 - Adams v. JE Merit Const., Inc.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1836-02-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Bullard, J.,

¶1delivered theopinion of the court.

¶2The plaintiff, who alleges himself to be a porter, ale and beer merchant, instituted the present suit to recover of the defendant, damages for the illegal arrest of his horse and dray, with sundry boxes and a basket containing a quantity of porter and ale, and for the wrongful detention of the same, and the consequent loss of custom and customers in his trade. The defendant attempted to justify the taking, by the fact that the horse and dray were found in possession of his runaway apprentice, and he demands damages in reconvention against the plaintiff for harboring him, and for the consequent loss of his custom as a baker and bread merchant. He alleges, at the same time, that when he arrested his apprentice, he did not know to whom the horse and dray ■ belonged.

In a case of ■wanton and illegal arrest of plaintiff’s horse and • dray, and illegal detention of them, without cause, by the defendant, it evinces such an obstinate determination to take justice into his own hands, as will authorise a jury to inflict damages in the shape of smart money.

¶3The issue thus made up, was submitted to a jury, who awarded three hundred dollars to the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.

¶4The parties have not thought proper to furnish us with any arguments on either side, and after a careful examination 'of the evidence, we are quite at a loss-to conceive on what the appellant could have founded any hope of relief from this court. The necessity of seizing the 'horse and dray in the first instance, in order to get possession of his truant apprentice boy, is not very obvious; but the detention of them after repeated demands, and the offer on the part of the plaintiff to give him ample security to make good any damage for which he might be justly liable, evince such an obstinate determination on the part of the defendant to take justice into his own hands, as fully authorised the jury to make him pay something in the shape of smart money. There is not a tittle of evidence in support of the pretended claim of the defendant against the plaintiff in reconvention. Among the items in the account which he insisted should be paid before he would give up the property, is one of five dollars as a reward for taking up his own apprentice; and another of fifteen dollars for serving his customers.

¶5It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed, with costs.

/9/la/161 · .json · Public domain