Caillouet v. American Sugar Refining Co.
| Decision Date | 19 January 1917 |
| Docket Number | 14815. |
| Citation | 250 F. 639 |
| Parties | CAILLOUET et al. v. AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
F Rivers Richardson, of New Orleans, La., and Caffery, Quintero & Brumby and P. Kramer, all of Franklin, La., for plaintiffs.
Carroll Henderson & Carroll and Denegre, Leovy & Chaffe, all of New Orleans, La., for defendants.
This is a suit by Mrs. Annette Caillouet, Mrs. Margaret Brown, Mrs Cecile Brown, and the Mrs. E. D. Burguieres Planting Company Limited, against the American Sugar Refining Company and J. T. Witherspoon, its New Orleans representative, for triple damages under the Sherman Law. The petition alleges, in substance, that Mrs. E. D. Burguieres was engaged in planting cane and manufacturing sugar from 1891 to 1904, when she died; that during that period the defendants were engaged in a conspiracy to monopolize the sugar refining business of the United States, and in pursuance of their plan depressed the raw sugar market; that Mrs. Burguieres sold her sugar at prices based on the open market and suffered damage in consequence of the unlawful acts of the defendants; that plaintiffs are the sole owners of Mrs. Burguieres' right to recover for the said damage; that the first 3 named plaintiffs are heirs of Mrs. Burguieres and together with the corporation acquired the interests of the other heirs by notarial act. Defendants except to the petition on the ground that any right of action in Mrs. Burguieres abated with her death and hence was neither heritable nor assignable.
It may be assumed that, if the action is not heritable, it is not assignable. Comegys v. Vasse, 1 Pet. 193, 7 L.Ed. 108.
The Sherman Law is silent as to the survival of the right of action. As there is no other statute of the United States in point, whether the action survives or not must be determined by the principles of the common law, regardless of the law of Louisiana. Schreiber v. Sharpless, 110 U.S. 80, 3 Sup.Ct. 423, 28 L.Ed. 65; Michigan Central R.R. v. Vreeland, 227 U.S. 59, 33 Sup.Ct. 192, 57 L.Ed. 417, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 176.
At common law as a general rule all actions ex delicto abate with the death of either party. Exception was made in some cases, as where the decedent had been deprived of particular property and his estate diminished by the wrongful act. But this was on the theory that the duty of the wrongdoer to return the property...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barnes Coal Corp. v. Retail Coal Merchants Ass'n
...United Copper Securities Co. v. Amalgamated Copper Co., 2 Cir., 232 F. 574; Haskell v. Perkins, D.C., 28 F.2d 222; Caillouet v. American Sugar Refining Co., D.C., 250 F. 639; Bonvillain v. American Sugar Refining Co., D.C., 250 F. 641; Imperial Film Exchange v. General Film Co., D.C., 244 F......
-
Wild v. Rarig
...Bethlehem Fabricators, Inc. v. H.D. Watts Co., 286 Mass. 556, 190 N.E. 828, 93 A.L.R. 1124 (1934). Contra: Caillouet v. American Sugar Refining Co., 250 F. 639 (E.D.La.1917); Jones v. Matson, 4 Wash.2d 659, 104 P.2d 591 (1940). The better reasoned cases appear to be the former, which hold t......
-
Stevenson v. Stoufer
... ... Perkins, ... [21 N.W.2d 291] ... D.C., 28 F.2d 222; Caillouet v. American Sugar Refining Co., ... D.C., 250 F. 639; Bonvillain v ... ...
-
DON GEORGE v. Paramount Pictures
...prescription, established by Article 3536 of our LSA-Civil Code, is, undebatably the one to apply.1 In Caillouet v. American Sugar Refining Co., D.C.1917, 250 F. 639, 640, Judge Foster "The general rule is not disputed by plaintiffs, but they contend a cause of action based on the Sherman L......