Case Name: HUTCHINGS vs. JOHNSON'S HEIRS
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1836-09
Citations: 10 La. 245
Docket Number: 
Parties: HUTCHINGS vs. JOHNSON’S HEIRS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 10
Pages: 245–246

Head Matter:
HUTCHINGS vs. JOHNSON’S HEIRS.
Western Dist.
September, 1836.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, THE JUDGE OF THE SEVENTH PRESIDING.
When, from the circumstances of the case, justice requires it, the cause will be remanded for a new trial.
The plaintiff claims a sum of money for the services of certain slaves of his, which were put on the plantation of the late' James L. Johnson. See the preceding case of Hutchings vs. Field et al.
He alleges that he was entitled to part of the crops of said plantation for his own and the services of his slaves, the proceeds of which, he says, amounted to considerable sums, and were received by the defendants’ ancestor. An account is made out and annexed, showing the sum claimed.
The defendants pleaded a general denial. They also set up the act of sale to Johnson and others, as the endorsers of the plaintiff, made in 1828, and averred that the said slaves were kept on the plantation in pursuance of said sale, and their maintenance and clothing amounted to nearly as much as the one half of the crops, and that the plaintiff had long since received such balance as was due to him. They also pleaded two separate demands against him in reconven tion. On hearing the evidence of the parties, the district judge was of opinion the claim of the plaintiff was fully compensated by the defendants. The suit was dismissed, and the plaintiff appealed.
When, from the circumstances of the case, justice requires it, the cause will be remanded for a new trial.
Simon, for the plaintiff.
Brownson, contra.

Opinion:
Bullard, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
This case is intimately connected with the one just decided between the same plaintiff and Fiéld et ah, as the controversy grows out of the same contract. We think that, considering the change in the condition of the parties which may be produced by that judgment, justice requires that this should be remanded for a new trial.
It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be reversed and annulled, that the case be- remanded for a new trial, and that the appellees pay the costs of the appeal.