Hemperly v. George Sliman & Co.

• Decision Date: 09 June 1937
• Docket Number: 1716
• Citation: 174 So. 673
• Parties: HEMPERLY v. GEORGE SLIMAN & CO. et al
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

174 So. 673

HEMPERLY v. GEORGE SLIMAN & CO. et al

No. 1716

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

June 9, 1937

Rehearing denied 175 So. 767.

Dickson & Denny, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Woosley & Cavanaugh, of Leesville, for appellees.

OPINION

DORE Judge.

The defendant George Sliman & Co. obtained a judgment against R T. Hemperly, the father of plaintiff herein, on October 17 1930, for something over $ 753, subject to certain credits. Under a writ of fi. fa. issued on said judgment from the district court of Vernon parish, there was seized in the parish of Beauregard, on August 23, 1935, a certain piece of real estate and store building standing in the name of plaintiff herein; and, also by garnishment process, there was seized the sum of $ 490 on deposit in the City Savings Bank & Trust Company of Deridder, in the name of R. T. Hemperly.

The present plaintiff, R. F. Hemperly, filed an intervention and third opposition in that proceeding, claiming the ownership of the real estate seized and also the money on deposit in said bank. Plaintiff as third opponent in that seizure also claimed that he had been damaged by the illegal seizure of his property in the sum of $ 600 plus $ 2 per day from the date of the seizure. He itemized the damages which he claimed in his third opposition as follows: $ 2 per day for loss of earnings from his store located on the real estate seized, his business being stopped by reason of the seizure of the money with which to operate the store; $ 500 for the loss of trade in said store, and $ 100 for attorneys' fees incurred in setting aside the illegal seizure of his property.

The seizing judgment creditor in that suit, defendant here, released the real estate from the seizure, and the opposition went to trial on the question of the ownership of the money on deposit in the bank. The trial court rendered a judgment sustaining the opposition of plaintiff as to said funds amounting to $ 490, and decreed plaintiff to be the owner of same and ordered the bank to turn this money over to the third opponent, the plaintiff here. No mention was made in the judgment of the damages claimed on account of the illegal seizure. On appeal to this court the judgment was affirmed. Sliman & Co. v. Hemperly, 168 So. 718.

In the present suit the plaintiff is claiming damages on account of said illegal seizure in the sum of $ 225.40, made up of the following items: Interest for ten months at 5 per cent. on the $ 490 by reason of being deprived of the use of said money for that time, the sum of $ 20.40; attorney's fees incurred in setting aside the seizure and expenses of the attorney, $ 135; and $ 10 expenses incurred by plaintiff in attending court; attorney's fees and expenses of the attorney in securing release of the real...