Case Name: Same Case - On a Re-hearing
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1850-04
Citations: 5 La. 250
Docket Number: 
Parties: Same Case — On a Re-hearing.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 250–250

Head Matter:
Same Case — On a Re-hearing.
THE appellee, Binion, prays for a re-hearing, and makes but one point, namely, that the court has erred, in supposing that his reconventional demand was founded on the non-residence of the plaintiff, Davis. If it had been so founded, we admit that the district judge may have injured plaintiff by the decision. But we do not rely on the amended article of the code: 375. The residence or non-residence of Davis was and is wholly immaterial.
On the contrary, our whole demand in reconvention was based on the proposition that, in every case of malicious and vexatious attachment, defendant may claim reconventional damages for injury to his good name. Offat v. Edwards, 9 R. R. 90, decides this clearly, and is in every respect a parallel case.
The domicil of the plaintiff, then, being unimportant, the ruling of the district judge caused no injury. We have never disputed the principles tf Hill, McLean 4* Co. v. Spangenberg. But in that case the residence was material. In this it is not. Moreover, Davis was allowed to prove his actual residence. The record shows it. We pray, then, that the judgment below may be affirmed in all respects.
The court will also observe that the defendant was not permitted to prove any such damages as he might have recovered against plaintiff on the attachment bond.
He was restricted to such as grew out of the nature of the action itself. We think, then, with great deference, that the court has misapprehended our pleadings in this point. On that, therefore, we desire to be re-heard.
Short and Collins, for defendant.

Opinion:
The judgment of the court on a rehearing was pronounced by
Rost, J.
We inadvertently omitted to state in the opinion in this case the
conclusion to which we had come, that the defendant could not go into the question of damages on his reconventional demand without the plaintiff's assent; and that as the assent was withheld he must resort to his action on the attachment bond. For this reason we considered that his right to reconvene depended upon the place of his domicil.
The re-hearing in this case is refused.