Daly v. Brock

63 So. 318 | La. | 1913

Lead Opinion

On Rule.

MONROE, J.

[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.

Let 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.

---

Opinion on the Merits

On the Merits.

SOMMERVILLE, J.

[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.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant denounced him as a sneak, charging that he had stolen certain lumber belonging to him, the defendant.

Defendant 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.

The 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.

The 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.

Judgment affirmed.