Caspar v. Prosdame
| Decision Date | 01 January 1894 |
| Docket Number | 11,283 |
| Citation | 14 So. 317,46 La.Ann. 36 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | HENRY CASPAR v. J. G. PROSDAME |
APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. King, J.
Moise & Cahn, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Dinkelspiel & Hart, for Defendant and Appellee.
The plaintiff, a young man, was the patentee of a collar and cuff rack, used for advertising purposes, by placing the advertisement in the rack.
He contracted in writing with the defendant to place his advertisement in his racks and put them in a stated number of shaving saloons and billiard halls in the city of New Orleans.
No particular names or places where he was to place his racks containing defendant's advertisement were mentioned in the contract.
The defendant having refused to pay the balance due to the plaintiff under the terms of the contract, the plaintiff brought suit against him before the First City Court for the amount he claimed.
At the first fixing of the case for trial it was not tried.
Immediately after the continuance, as plaintiff was leaving the court room, he passed the defendant, who called upon him to stop at the same time said that he wished to see him.
Walking together to the hall of the court building, the defendant between his two friends who were standing near, pressed the plaintiff against the wall and assaulted him; put his hand upon him in a fit of anger.
The defendant, Prosdame, at the time, uttered words abusive, vituperative and insulting, and charged the plaintiff, Caspar, with having violated his contract; with having robbed him of his money; with being a thief, and threatened to cowhide him.
A short time after the occurrence the plaintiff called at the office of one of the witnesses, who testified that he was quite excited and began crying.
The petition alleges that defendant's conduct was malicious, for the purpose of injuring petitioner, and prevent him from prosecuting his case against the defendant, and for the further purpose of humiliating and insulting him.
Prior to the date of the insult it had been the intention of the plaintiff to leave the city.
After he had been thus treated he determined to remain, and at his instance his case against the defendant was set for trial.
After the testimony had been heard on the trial, the court pronounced judgment in his favor.
The defendant, without availing himself of the right of appeal, paid the judgment.
The judgment sustained Caspar's interpretation of the contract.
The plaintiff subsequently brought suit and prayed for actual, punitory and exemplary damages in the sum of $ 5000.
The defendant pleaded a general denial.
The judgment of the court a qua rejected plaintiff's demand.
The court admitted testimony which was offered to prove irritation and provocation.
The court admitted it and limited its effect to the mitigation of damages, and decided that it was not admissible under the general issue to prove irritation and provocation.
To the ruling a bill of exception was reserved by plaintiff.
The testimony offered to prove provocation and cause of irritation consisted of verbal conditions superadded to the written contract, the defendant contends.
The only evidence upon the subject is that of the plaintiff and of the defendant; one asserts that there was additional stipulation, the other denies.
The evidence was admissible in mitigation, and was properly admitted with the restriction made. Hitchcock vs. North, 5 R. 328.
There was no testimony offered of character or reputation of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff claims damages for injury to his feelings and for the humiliation to which he has been subjected.
No claim is made for injury to his character or reputation.
Our first impressions were that the restricted character of the demand left no ground for damages, and that the cause of action alleged was not per se actionable; that character and reputation are requisites to be considered in suits of this nature.
Upon further consideration and examination of authorities we conclude that they are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Billiot v. B.P. Oil Co.
...broad discretion to the jury in assessing damages under Article 1934. See id. at 1042-50, 74 So. at 546-49 (discussing Caspar v. Prosdame, 46 La.Ann. 36, 14 So. 317 (1894); Rutherford v. Railroad Co., 41 La.Ann. 793, 6 So. 644 (1889); McFee v. Railroad, 42 La.Ann. 790, 7 So. 720; Keene v. L......
-
Gladney v. deBretton, 39285
...in fixing damages.' Simpson v. Robinson, 104 La. 180, 28 So. 908, citing Simons v. Lewis, 51 La.Ann. 327, 25 So. 406, Caspar v. Prosdame, 46 La.Ann. 36, 14 So. 317, Taylor v. Ellington, 46 La.Ann. 371, 15 So. 499. See also Germann, Jr. v. Crescioni, 105 La. 496, 29 So. 968, Philip v. Quenqu......
-
Moore v. Blanchard
...cases in which compensatory damages were mitigated by reason of provocation or fault shown on the part of the plaintiffs. Caspar v. Prosdame, 46 La.Ann. 36, 14 So. 317; Bernard v. Kelley, 118 La. 132, 42 So. 723; Harvey v. Harvey, 124 La. 595, 50 So. 592; Leaman v. Feinman, La.App., 146 So.......
-
Underwood v. Gulf Refining Co. of Louisiana
...noted that, in cases of this kind, our law vests "much discretion" in the judge or jury. Civ. Code, art. 1934, par. 3; Caspar v. Prosdame, 46 La.Ann. 40, 14 So. 317; Taylor v. Ellington, 46 La.Ann. 375, 15 So. 499. the exercise of that discretion we fix the amount to which plaintiffs are en......
-
Slaying the Trojan Horse: Arabie v. CITGO and Punitive Damages Under Louisiana's Conflict-of-Laws Provisions
...529 (2010). 24. See deGravelles & deGravelles, supra note 15, at 583 n.30 (citing and discussing some of those cases (Casper v. Prosdame, 14 So. 317 (La. 1894); McFee v. Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pac. R.R. Co., 7 So. 720, 722–23 (La. 1890); Rutherford v. Shreveport & Houston R.R. Co., 6 So. 6......