Modisette & Adams v. Lorenze

• Decision Date: 28 February 1927
• Docket Number: 28125
• Citation: Modisette & Adams v. Lorenze, 163 La. 505, 112 So. 397 (La. 1927)
• Parties: MODISETTE & ADAMS v. LORENZE
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

112 So. 397

163 La. 505

MODISETTE & ADAMS v. LORENZE

No. 28125

Supreme Court of Louisiana

February 28, 1927

Rehearing Denied March 28, 1927

Appeal from Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Acadia; W W. Bailey, Judge.

Suit by Modisette & Adams, against Abraham Lorenze, in which the Arkansas Valley Oil Company filed a petition of intervention or third opposition. From a judgment for plaintiffs against defendant in an unsatisfactory amount and a judgment for intervener, plaintiffs appeal.

Amended, and affirmed as amended.

Modisette & Adams, of Jennings, pro se.

H. K Strickland, of Baton Rouge, for Arkansas Valley Oil Co., third opponent.

OPINION

O'NIELL, C. J.

This suit was brought by a law firm claiming $ 500 for professional services and $ 72.55 reimbursement for money paid for the defendant's account. Averring that the defendant was not a resident of the state, the plaintiffs obtained a writ of attachment, by virtue of which the sheriff seized a small tract of land and a lot of drilling machinery, pipe, fittings, etc. An Oklahoma corporation, styled Arkansas Valley Oil Company, filed a petition of intervention or third opposition, claiming the property seized, and praying for dissolution of the attachment. The defendant, Lorenze, who was then in Washington, Pa., was informed of the suit and seizure by letter from the sheriff, and, in reply, wrote a letter to the sheriff, applying some very insulting epithets and making scandalous charges against the plaintiffs. Thereupon they filed a supplemental petition, making the Arkansas Valley Oil Company a party defendant, increasing their claim for attorneys' fees to $ 2,900, and claiming $ 5,000 damages for the libelous letter of the defendant, Lorenze. They alleged that two of the five lawsuits in which their professional service was rendered were filed on behalf of the Arkansas Valley Oil Company, and that the company owed the fees, amounting to $ 1,500, for the twosuits. They made the same claim in their answer to the oil company's petition of intervention or third opposition. The defendant, Lorenze, excepted to the jurisdiction of the court, averring that his domicile was at the Rigmaiden Hotel, in Lake Charles, La., and that he was therefore not a nonresident of the state. Evidence was heard on the exception, and it was overruled. Lorenze and the oil company, of which he was president, the filed pleas of misjoinder of parties defendant, which were overruled. Answering the original and the supplemental petition, the defendants denied liability, and, in defense of the charge of libel, Lorenze pleaded that his letter to the sheriff was a privileged communication. The court gave judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against Lorenze for the $ 572.55 originally sued for and for $ 500 damages for libel. At the same time the court gave judgment in favor of the oil company, declaring the company to be the owner of the property attached, and dissolving the writ of attachment. Lorenze was condemned to pay all costs, except those incurred in the attachment of the property, which the plaintiffs were condemned to pay. The plaintiffs have appealed from the judgment, and Lorenze, answering the appeal, prays for dismissal of the suit.

We agree with the district judge tat there was no merit in Lorenze's plea to the jurisdiction of the court. It was proven on the trial of the plea that he had no domicile at the Rigmaiden Hotel in Lake Charles, but only stopped there occasionally, as other transient guests did. Besides, he waived his right to plead to the jurisdiction of the court ratione personae by first asking for and obtaining further time in which to answer the suit, without any protest or reservation whatever.

The pleas of misjoinder of parties defendant were founded upon contradictions or denials of certain allegations of fact contained in the supplemental petition, and were therefore defenses to the suit on its merits. The plaintiffs claimed that the two defendants were liable in solido to the extent of $ 1,500, because, in their transactions with Lorenze, he sometimes acted for himself and sometimes as president of the oil company, and because the services which they rendered, to the extent of $ 1,500, inured to the benefit of both defendants. The judge was right, therefore, in overruling the plea of misjoinder of parties defendant, and in thus leaving the question of the oil company's liability to be determined by the final judgment on the merits of the case.

There was no direct evidence offered on the trial of the case as to the ownership of the property attached, except an admission that...