Williams v. Pope Manufacturing Company
Decision Date | 23 April 1900 |
Docket Number | 13,228 |
Citation | 27 So. 851,52 La.Ann. 1417 |
Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Parties | MRS. E. J. WILLIAMS v. POPE MANUFACTURING COMPANY |
APPEAL from the Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans -- St Paul, J.
Pierson & Pierson, for Plaintiff, Appellant.
William C. McLeod and Buck, Walshe & Buck, for Defendant, Appellee.
This is a supplement to suit of same title, which was disposed of by this court, recently. See 51st Annual, page 186.
From the record it appears, that a motion was filed in the District Court "suggesting that the former decree of this court dismissing this suit on the fourth exception filed by the defendant, has been annulled, avoided and reversed by the final judgment of the Supreme Court, rendered on appeal thereto, and ordering this cause to be reinstated on the docket of this court, to be proceeded with according to the views herein expressed and the law;" and an order to that effect was made -- a copy of the opinion of the Supreme Court being therewith filed.
Thereupon, the case was reinstated on the docket of the District Court, and proceeded with according to law; and upon a trial thereof, the remaining exceptions of the defendant were sustained, and the suit again dismissed.
The reasons of the district judge for so doing are in writing, and were filed in the court a qua, and a judgment dismissing the suit was, thereupon, entered; and from that judgment, the plaintiff prosecutes this, her further appeal.
For the purpose of a clear understanding and appreciation of this case, it will be necessary to make a few extracts from the plaintiff's petition to which the exceptions of the defendant were directed, and which are substantially as follows, to-wit:
The plaintiff, Mrs. Emily J. Williams, wife of Charles H. Williams, a resident of and domiciled in the State of Mississippi, sues herein, individually, "and for the use and benefit of her daughter, Florence Williams, aged fourteen years, her husband being absent in the State of Mississippi, and his present whereabouts therein unknown to her."
Petitioner avers that although she and her daughter were first arrested about 5:30 o'clock on Sunday, no formal charge or affidavit was made, nor warrant issued for their arrest, until 1:30 p.m. the following day. In the meanwhile, they were unlawfully imprisoned and detained by procurement of said representatives of said corporation, acting for the corporation, and which, as your petitioner believes, is responsible for the wanton and unlawful imprisonment of herself and her daughter, and which was done in a malicious and cruel manner, notwithstanding the evidence of their innocence was made manifest to said parties.
She represents, that one of said parties, notwithstanding he was fully informed of all of the aforesaid facts, made an affidavit on the part of said corporation, before the judge of the First Recorder's Court, "in which he falsely and corruptly charged your petitioner and her little daughter with having committed the felonious crime of breach of trust and embezzlement of two bicycles, alleged to have been hired from said corporation on March 26, 1897, as set forth in said affidavit."
That shortly after said affidavit was made, and they had been released on bond, "they were called upon by said Recorder, and notified that said charges had been withdrawn, and that they were discharged therefrom."
Petitioner alleges, "that at the time that said charges were preferred, and of their arrest and imprisonment, they were persons of good moral character and reputation, professed Christians, members of the Baptist Church, and in full enjoyment of their Christian faith and church-fellowship."
That the said charges of grand larceny and breach of trust and embezzlement, as above set out, were libelously and slanderously made, without propable cause therefor; and that they were thereby wantonly and maliciously libelled and slandered in their good name, character and reputation.
That in their arrest and subsequent detention and incarceration, they were unlawfully, falsely and maliciously prosecuted, without any probable cause or justification whatever, and greatly to their injury and damage. That by law, they are entitled to sue for and recover not only compensation for all the said losses and injuries sustained, but, also, in addition thereto, to recover exemplary and punitive damages therefor.
The petitioner alleges "that she was married in 1873 in the State of Mississippi, where she and her husband continuously resided, and which is their exclusive matrimonial domicil; and her said husband is absent from the State of Louisiana, with his residence and domicil in the State of Mississippi, which is, also, her domicil; and that as to their matrimonial relations, as well as their acquisitions and property rights, they are subjected to and governed by the laws of the State of Mississippi.
She further shows, "that her said husband abandoned her in 1893, after six children were born of their marriage, and disappeared from the matrimonial domicil, and has since absented himself therefrom; that she is not now aware of the precise locality in Mississippi in which he may be found; and that by the laws of Louisiana, she is entitled to exercise all the rights of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johnson v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co.
...since the question is not regulated by statute, the law is what this Court has announced it to be. The 1900 case of Williams v. Pope Mfg. Co., 52 La.Ann. 1417, 27 So. 851, recognized the transitory nature of tort claims and the then established principle universally observed in the United S......
-
Black v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
...99; 23 Tex.Jur. 146; Jacobson v. Bunker Hill & S. Mining, etc., C., 3 Idaho, Hasb., 126, 28 P. 396; Williams v. Pope Mfg. Co., 52 La.Ann. 1417, 27 So. 851, 50 L.R.A. 816, 78 Am.St.Rep. 390. 2 Jacobson v. Bunker Hill & S. Mining Co., 3 Idaho, Hasb., 126, 28 P. 396. Ch. 9, Title 31, Idaho Cod......
-
Ministers & Missionaries Benefit Bd. v. Snow
...691, 693 [1983] ; Radford v. Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co., 185 Ky. 453, 459, 215 S.W. 285, 288 [1919] ; Williams v. Pope Mfg. Co., 52 La.Ann. 1417, 1438–1439, 27 So. 851, 860 [1900] ; Smith v. Howard, 86 Me. 203, 205–206, 29 A. 1008, 1009 [1894] ; Harding v. Schapiro, 120 Md. 541, 548, 87 ......
-
Ministers & Missionaries Benefit Bd. v. Snow
...691, 693 [1983] ; Radford v. Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co., 185 Ky. 453, 459, 215 S.W. 285, 288 [1919] ; Williams v. Pope Mfg. Co., 52 La.Ann. 1417, 1438–1439, 27 So. 851, 860 [1900] ; Smith v. Howard, 86 Me. 203, 205–206, 29 A. 1008, 1009 [1894] ; Harding v. Schapiro, 120 Md. 541, 548, 87 ......