Case ID: la_12/html/0422-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Carleton, J.,\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

NORMENT, CURATOR, ETC. vs. GILL ET UX.
    Western Dist.
    
      Oct. 1838.
    APREAL FROM THE COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT FOR THE PARISH OF RAPIDES, TIIE JUDGE THEREOF PRESIDING.
    Where an appeal is evidently taken for delay, and the judgment appealed from carries no interest, it will be affirmed with the maximum of damages allowed by law.
    „„ Where an appeal is evidently and611 the judfment appealed irom carnes no interest, it will ti^maximum of edIbySieaw.aU0W‘
    The plaintiff alleges, he is the curator of one James West, deceased, who, in his life time, with one Sharpe, his partner, (now an absentee) built a gin house, etc., for the defendants, worth one thousand dollars, which they refuse to pay, although amicably requested to do so. He prays judgment for said sum.
    The defendants pleaded a general denial.
    The evidence showed, that Gill admitted he owed plaintiff,' and said he would compromise it at three hundred and ninety-three dollars, but never paid any thing.
    The cause was submitted to a jury, who returned a verdict of three hundred and ninety-three dollars for the plaintiff) and from judgment rendered thereon, the defendants appealed.
    
      Brewer, for the plaintiff.
    
      Barry and Bryce, contra.
    
   Carleton, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case also comes before us without statement of facts, bill of exceptions, or other matter enabling the court to revise the judgment rendered in the first instance.

The only feature distinguishing it from that of Gibson vs. „ , . , „ Gill, just decided, is, that in the latter case the judgment of the District Court, carried interest of five per centum from iU(ficial demand, whereas none was allowed on the judgment J , , j a now under consideration. We think it a proper case for the maximum of damages allowed by law. Code of Practice, artkle 907‘

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed, with ten per centum damages on the amount of said judgment, with costs.