Swain v. Louisiana Light & Power Co.

• Decision Date: 02 June 1930
• Docket Number: 3797
• Citation: 128 So. 538,13 La. App. 515
• Parties: SWAIN v. LOUISIANA LIGHT & POWER COMPANY
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

128 So. 538

13 La. App. 515

SWAIN v. LOUISIANA LIGHT & POWER COMPANY

No. 3797

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Second Circuit

June 2, 1930

Appeal from Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of Ouachita. Hon Percy Sandel, Judge.

Action by W. R. Swain against Louisiana Light & Power Company.

There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appealed.

Judgment modified and affirmed.

M. C Redmond, of Monroe, attorney for plaintiff, appellee.

Theus Grisham, Davis & Leigh, of Monroe, attorneys for defendant appellant.

OPINION

DREW, J.

This is a suit for damages occasioned by the cutting off, by two of defendant's employees, of plaintiff's electric current, both at his house and at his restaurant, on August 23, 1929.

Defendant is a public service corporation, supplying electricity to the residents of the city of West Monroe, La., and at the time plaintiff's lights were cut off he was living in that city and also operating a small restaurant on the main street of West Monroe, and was a subscriber to the electric current furnished by defendant.

The bills sent out by defendant have printed on their face the following stipulation:

"This bill is due on the 1st and delinquent after the 10th. If not paid by the 15th, the company reserves the right to discontinue service without notice."

The plaintiff was rather slow about paying his light bill, and on one occasion prior to this the lights in his house had been cut off for failure to pay by the fifteenth of the month.

On August 15, 1929, about 5:30 in the afternoon, plaintiff went to the office of defendant, and, the bookkeeper being gone for the day and the books all locked up, he paid his light bill to the manager, who was the only person in the office at the time. He paid by check, which was duly cashed, and through error the plaintiff was not given proper credit. On the 17th of August, in making up a list of delinquents, the plaintiff was found by the books of the defendant to be delinquent, and instructions were given to two employees to disconnect the lights in plaintiff's house and restaurant. At about 9 o'clock in the morning defendant's employees went to plaintiff's home and notified his wife that they had come to disconnect the lights for failure to pay. She offered to pay, which offer was refused by the employees, they stating to her that she would have to pay at the office. The lights at the residence were cut off at about that time, and at about 11 o'clock the same employees went to the restaurant to cut off the lights there. The plaintiff was not in, and his employee, being his father-in-law, persuaded defendant's employees to wait until 1 o'clock, at which time plaintiff was expected to be back, and informed them that, if plaintiff was not back at that time, he would pay the bill. About 1:30 the same employees returned to the restaurant, at which time the plaintiff had arrived. They asked plaintiff's employee in the presence of plaintiff what he was going to do about the light bill, and he replied that he was not going to do anything. Just prior to the arrival of defendant's employees, the plaintiff, in discussing the matter with his employee, had told him that he had paid the bill.

The defendant's employees proceeded to cut off the lights in the presence of plaintiff, and plaintiff did not object, nor did he tell them that he had paid the bill. He said nothing to the men cutting off the lights.

About two hours later, plaintiff went to the office of the defendant and demanded that his lights be connected within thirty minutes. Within that length of time the manager of defendant went to the restaurant where plaintiff exhibited a canceled check showing that he had paid his bill. The manager apologized to him for the mistake, and at ten minutes to 4 the lights were again connected at the restaurant. A very short time afterwards the lights were again connected at the residence.

Plaintiff brought this suit for $ 850 damages for loss of business, discomfort, embarrassment, and chagrin, for the lights having been cut off. The lower court awarded him damages in the sum of $ 50. From that judgment defendant has appealed, and the plaintiff has answered the appeal, praying that the judgment be increased to the amount sued for.

Defendant has filed in this court a plea of estoppel, based on the fact brought out on the trial in the lower court that, as above set forth, plaintiff was present at the time the lights were cut off and knew full well at that time that the bill had been paid, and that defendant's employees were making a mistake in cutting off the lights, and that he did not so advise defendant's employees, and did not in any way, by word...