The question, therefore, is whether the seizure of plaintiffs' property was illegal. It is admitted to have been excessive, for while the amount mentioned in the writ is, with attorney's fees and costs, in the neighborhood of $50, the actual amount due, according to defendant, was less than $12. As a matter of fact, defendant, in his answer, admits that the entire principal had been paid when the seizure was issued, though the testimony of his employees is to the effect that $3.25 was due. At any rate, the seizure was excessive.
Defendant's counsel calls our attention to the case of Hamilton v. Antoine (La.App.) 157 So. 795" court="La. Ct. App." date_filed="1934-12-04" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/hamilton-v-antoine-3477151?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3477151">157 So. 795, which he contends supports his argument to the effect that no damages can be allowed here because there is no proof of actual damages. In the case relied upon the seizure was enjoined, and it does not appear that the plaintiff in the injunction proceeding suffered any deprivation of his property as a result of the seizure. In the instant case, plaintiffs' household furniture, consisting of practically the entire contents of their dwelling, was removed to the constable's warehouse. Under such circumstances, damages are presumed to have been caused by the consequent inconvenience and humiliation. The humble home of plaintiffs should not have been invaded and their personal property removed without legal authority. Van Wren v. Flynn, 34 La.Ann. 1158; Luthy v. Philip Werlein Co., 163 La. 752" court="La." date_filed="1927-04-25" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/luthy-v-philip-werlein-co-3472546?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3472546">163 La. 752,112 So. 709" court="La." date_filed="1927-04-25" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/luthy-v-philip-werlein-co-3472546?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3472546">112 So. 709; Perry v. Junius Hart Piano Company, Ltd., 10 Orleans App. 170; Washington v. Singer Sewing Machine Co., 10 Orleans App. 270; Greenlee v. Singer Sewing Machine Co., 10 Orleans App. 271; Lalonier v. Philip Werlein Co., Ltd., 13 Orleans App. 235 and Levy Lewis v. Abraham Burlgass (La.App.) 172 So. 807" court="La. Ct. App." date_filed="1937-03-08" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/lewis-v-burglass-3480118?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3480118">172 So. 807, decided March 8th, 1937 (not yet reported [in State Reports]). It is true that in each of the cited cases recourse was not had to legal process, the defendants having taken the law in their own hands. In the present case a judgment was obtained and a writ of fieri facias issued, but for an excessive amount. The proceeding can only be regarded as having legal sanction to the extent of the obligation due under the judgment. Having caused execution to issue for a much larger amount, it would appear that the situation is the same as in the cases we have cited where no resort was had to legal process. That plaintiffs have been damaged by a seizure for $50 when the writ should only have issued for $12 is, in view of their impecunious circumstances, obvious, for it might have been possible for them to obtain a release of the seizure for the smaller sum and quite beyond their resources to effect a release for the larger amount.
Our conclusion is that there is liability, but since no special damages are proven, a nominal award of $100 seems proper.
For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is reversed, and it is now ordered that there be judgment herein in favor of the plaintiffs, Sam Jackson and Sarah Griffin, and against the defendant, Morris Kirschman, in the sum of $100, with legal interest from judicial demand and all costs.
Reversed.