Case ID: pelt_4/html/0418-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By his Honor John St. Paul.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

NO. 7982.
    STATE, EX REL, PENROSE RADOVICH VS JOHN MINEO, ET AL.
    STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL PARISH OF ORLEANS.
   OPINIOJS

By his Honor John St. Paul.

Relator seeks by Mandamus to compel the Recorder of *St ^3 St it Mortgages.to cancel Ml UmeriptloR from his records a certain building- contract entered into between the Relator as owner and the Respondent (Mineo) as builder. The contract in was entere^ into and recorded-August 1917; respondent then proceeded regularly with the work until January 191R, when he ceased working and was formally put in default. At that time he had been paid all but $400 on account of the contradst. of which $200 was afterwards paid out b'- bis order and for his account.. The Relator then finished the building at a cost which exceeded $200. i>o that the respondent has been paid all that was due him under the contract; and there were no liens recorded against the building at any time. This writ was applied for^ Apr 11^19 20.

I.

It is contended that Mend aims is not a proper remedy, hee-use the Relator has other means of redress, towit, an ordinary action.

But under the Code of Practice (Art 8S1) "This *<Uc^u!L ¿¡6l, ^discretion of the judge, even when a party has other means of reRief, if the slowness of ordinary legal forms Í3 likely to produce such a delay that the s. x x administration of justice will suffer from it."

3ut since the judge is vested with discretion to isát>e the \vr*t vtfieo applied for, it is clear that Ti© has also discretion to recall it when in his opinion tv^ 5°su?s presante'3 by t,v« return are such that they can, he tried more advantageously in the ordinary w¿y. And this is all tV t w?s decided in Koulet vs Acme Lumber Co, 115 La 897 (896 )

2ut there-is no such o°se g-esnntod ^«re. Aslator has shown in a speedy and convincing manner thnt tv© respondent abandoned, the work and has been paid all that is due him under the Contract; and that no óth«v liens ‘Ka.ve heen recorded against the pronerty. cCas&dfoot' . Soo-&o/

u.idev f^e circumstances, to relegate "elstor to the Tctp and te<Hov.c process of an oM(’i:i»r?r '-ction, v/it> Ms prop-'^ty tied :*•■* in the mcy-v-Mi^, vov.id M e d«ni?i of justice purely ^n* Mm^iy,,

II,

^s to Act P.G'l of 1916, vT* are clearly of opinion that wMti it is shown (as it is here) that the contractor h^s hese pcid in full *he amount of hirs contract, and that no 'Mens hove hc^r- rpcorded within 45 df ys after the building has heen ac^pted or contractor dnf"/uited the ov.nor then has r. right te ho^c the inscription of t’*e conirc-et crno'‘?i^'5; for the ov-w"’ is clearly "an interested party,"

February 7th, 1921.

[There nas mentioned in the pleadings and in the argument s claim for extra work amounting to :;'17fi, eaid to have heen recorded against the property long s.ftervvards; hut as relator has not asked the cancellation of this inscription, and respondent has asked no judgmenl therefor, we are of opinjon that p*>np is not involved here in.

[The judgment apnea led from seems to us correct, and accordingly

Judgment Affirmed.

Hew Orleans ha,