Williams v. Pope Manufacturing Company

Decision Date23 April 1900
Docket Number13,228
Citation27 So. 851,52 La.Ann. 1417
CourtLouisiana Supreme Court
PartiesMRS. 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.

WATKINS J. BREAUX, J., concurs.

OPINION

WATKINS J. 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."

She, thereupon, represents that the defendant, a corporation, as she is advised, under the laws of the State of Connecticut, with its principal place of business and general offices and factories in the city of Hartford, in that State, with a branch office and place of business at No. 1757 St. Charles avenue, in the city of New Orleans, where it is now operating and conducting its business, of the manufacture, sale and hire of bicycles, within and under the laws of this State, through its officers, agents and employees in charge thereof, "is justly and legally indebted unto your petitioner in the sum of ten thousand dollars, individually, and for the further sum of ten thousand dollars, for the use and benefit of her said minor daughter, for this, to-wit: --

"For libel, slander, public defamation of character, malicious prosecution, and false imprisonment of your petitioner and her said minor daughter, committed against them in the city of New Orleans, on Sunday, about April 4th, 1897, by the said Pope Manufacturing Company, its officers, agents and employees, and for which said corporation is responsible and liable to them in damages.

"Your petitioner alleges that while she and her said minor daughter were quietly and in an orderly manner passing along Napoleon avenue, a public thoroughfare of this city, they were followed and pursued by two men, strangers to them, but who they afterwards learned were F. and Harold Bayhi, father and son, agents and employees of said Pope Manufacturing Company, acting as detectives and spotters for said company. That said two men overtook them on said public avenue, at or near the corner of Carondelet street, where they rudely accosted them, and forcibly arrested and detained them without cause therefor, and notwithstanding neither of them had, nor claimed to have, nor exhibited any right or authority for their action; they, then and there, in the presence of those passing along said avenue, publicly charged and accused your petitioner and her said daughter with having committed the felonious and infamous offense of grand larceny of two bicycles from the said Pope Manufacturing Company of the value of $ 120.00.

"That they were forcibly detained by said two men until the arrival of a policeman, Corporal O'Neal (by whom) they were carried in custody through the public streets of said city to the Seventh precinct station (wherein) they were incarcerated until about 8:30 p.m. the same evening, when they were transferred to the Second precinct station, and therein imprisoned and kept closely confined until about 1:30 o'clock the following evening, when, through the efforts of their minister and other friends, they were admitted to bail, and discharged from custody.

"Petitioner further alleges, that an officer of the corporation, representing and acting for and on behalf of said corporation, joined and cooperated with said named employees in making said charge and arrest of your petitioner and her daughter, and in their subsequent imprisonment and detention. That said accusation and charge were entirely false and unfounded as to them, and were made without any cause therefor; and your petitioner and her daughter earnestly protested their entire innocence, and begged and implored said parties to desist from their course, and to allow them to go without further molestation; but that their appeals and entreaties were received with contempt, and no further satisfaction accorded to them than the statement that they, said men, were acting for a company, fully responsible and capable of paying all damages which they might inflict."

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.

"That by the laws of said State, she is separate in property from her said husband, with the sole right and authority to administer separately her own personal affairs, property rights and acquisitions, and entitled to acquire, hold, use and dispose of the same from the control or marital influence of her said husband; with the right and capacity to sue and be sued personally and without joinder or authority of her husband, as to all matters relating to or affecting her personal rights or property interests.

"That by the laws of said State, the damage herein sued for and sustained by her, arose and accrued to her separately, and not in whole or in part to her husband. That the laws of her matrimonial domicil govern and control her right to separately sue for the damages herein claimed, which were sustained by her while in Louisiana."

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
33 cases
  • Johnson v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • March 30, 1970
    ...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
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • July 27, 1940
    ...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
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 15, 2015
    ...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
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 15, 2015
    ...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 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT