Case ID: teiss_4/html/0078-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MOORE, J. MOORE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 4016.
    (Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans.)
    JOHN H. SMIT vs. CHARLES W. WALL.
    The facts of this case are similar to that of J. J. Moll vs. C. W. Wall, this day decided by us.
    Appeal from Civil District Court, Division E.
    Clegg & Quintero, J. O. Daspit and Ivy G. Kittredge, for plaintiff and appellee.
    J. G. Robin and W. S. Parkerson, for defendant and appellant.
    November 5, 1906.
   MOORE, J.

The facts of this case are similar to that of J. J. Moll vs. Charles W. Wall No. 4015 of our docket, this day decided by us, and for the reasons assigned in said latter cause.

It is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment appealed from be and the same is hereby amended by reducing the judgment for seven hundred and fifty-three 59-100 dollars to one hundred and thirty-seven 52-100 dollars and as thus amended the judgment is affirmed.

The costs of appeal to be taxed against the plaintiff and appellee.

ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING.

ON PART OF APPELLANT.

A clerical error in the computation of the amount of an indebtedness though formulated in the decretal part of a judgment of this Court maj' be rectified and the correct amount specified in passing on application to review, without granting a rehearing.

ON PART OF APPELLEE.

The rehearing on part of appellee is refused for the reasons assigned this day in the kindred case of J. J. Moll vs. Chas. W.' Wall.

Rehearing refused but former decree amended.

MOORE, J.

Both the appellant and the appellee pray for a rehearing of this cause The latter’s complaint is the same as that urged by the appellee in J. J. Moll vs. C. W. Wall No. 4015 of our docket. For the reasons this day assigned. by us for refusing a rehearing in that casé a rehearing will be refused the appellee in the instant cause.

The appellant’s cause of complaint is that we allowed the plaintiff his wages for the period claimed at a rate greater than that alleged in his petition and as shown by the proof. This complaint is fully sustained by the record.

In the kindred case of J. J. Moll vs. Charles W. Wall No, 4015, we allowed the plaintiff his wages from Dec. 1, 1904, to Feb’y. 13, 1905, at $1.50 per day..' .$112.50 And the bonus for the previous year . 25.00

Total. $137.50

In the instant cause we allowed the same amount assuming that the rate of wages claimed was the same as in Moll’s case. In this we were in error. Smit’s claim for wages is for the same period of time but the rate alleged and proved is but 45 cents per day, this representing a daily balance due him. He would, therefore, be entitled to pay only to the sum

(for wages) of.$33-75

And for the previous year’s bonus. 25.00

Total.$58.75

But as this is but a clerical error made in the computation of the amount though formulated in the decretal part of the judgment, it may be rectified in passing on application to review, without granting a rehearing.

December 3, 1906.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the rehearing asked for by both appellant and appellee be denied, but that our former decree be and the same is hereby amended by reducing the amount from one hundred and thirty-seven 50-100 dollars, to fifty-eight 75-100 dollars and that as thus amended our former decree remain undisturbed,