Case Name: T. O. Kearney v. D. H. Holmes; D. H. Holmes v. T. O. Kearney
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1851-04
Citations: 6 La. Ann. 373
Docket Number: 
Parties: T. O. Kearney v. D. H. Holmes. D. H. Holmes v. T. O. Kearney.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 373–377

Head Matter:
T. O. Kearney v. D. H. Holmes. D. H. Holmes v. T. O. Kearney.
A clerk iu a large dry goods store frequented by female customers, while ladies were in the store, engaged in a quarrel with another clerk and drew on him a revolver without there being any necessity for such violence, Held: that such conduct justified the employer in discharging him.
Where a party has used the process of courts for the sole purpose of vexing and harrassing the defendant, without any reasonable hope or expectation of recovering any portion of the sum claimed, such party becomes liable to the other for damages, even though the suits thus brought were merely ordinary civil suits.
APPEAL from the Second District Court of New Orleans, Lea, J.
The judgment of the district court was in favor of Holmes against Kearney, for two hundred and fifty dollars damages on the reconventional demand of Holmes.
C. Redmond, for the plaintiff,
made the following points on the reconventional demand of Holmes: As to the action in damages, consolidated by consent with this, although Holmes has obtained a judgment for $250, we cannot bring ourselves to the conviction that our duty to the appellant requires argument thereon. We deem it sufficient to observe, that the two first suits were for damages for breach of partnership agreement; that the 'defendant was put under oath, and all but admitted a legal contract, though qualified by the declaration that the promise made was not positive, but conditional, on the respondent’s withdrawal from business, a design which was defeated by the French Revolution. That the first suit was discontinued because defendant refused to wait the return of a commission, and that in the others defendant moved for a non-suit.
In any of these cases defendant might have introduced his evidence, and have obtained a final judgment had he thought proper to do so. He might have availed himself of his own answers to interrogatories, had he deemed them available as evidence to terminate the litigation. On this subject, we beg leave to refer the court to Mr. Budd’s testimony, and to the extracts from Mr. Griffith’s letters, a witness, who was in possession of the partnership agreement, but who refused to testify in a quarrel between mutual friends.'
Benjamin and Micou, for defendant, contended:
The plaintiff instituted four successive suits against defendant, without shadow of claim, and upon causes of action merely pretended and fictitious. To thefourth suit, defendant replied by claiming, in a separate action, damages for this malicious prosecution and annoyance. This demand was consolidated with plaintiff’s suit, by consent, and tried as a reconvention.
It is impossible to discover even an excuse for the plaintiff for his repeated and pertinacious demands. The defendant had acted towards him with the greatest forbearance and liberality, and no single fact or circumstance was proved by the plaintiff tending to support his demands.
We are sure that this court can find no fault with the judgment of the court below, except that the damages awarded to the defendant are much less than he sustained; and we are confident that, if he had not refrained from demanding an amendment of the judgment in his favor, it would have been granted by this court.

Opinion:
The judgment of the court (Preston, J., dissenting in part) was pronounced by
Rost, J.
The evidence in the record satisfies us that the plaintiff, so far from exercising his legitimate legal rights in his numerous suits against the defendant, has used the process of courts for the sole purpose of vexing and harrassing him, without any reasonable hope or expectation of recovering any portion of the sum claimed. The fact that he agreed to take less wages from the defendant than he was receiving in another house, has no weight with us. It may not have been optional with him to remain in that house, and he may have had many motives for making the change, besides the belief that he was to become the partner of the defendant. We are of opinion that the judgment .should be affirmed in both cases.
Judgment affirmed in both cases, with costs.