Case Name: Charles DeGruy vs. Jos. A. Aiken & Co.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1891-05
Citations: 43 La. Ann. 798
Docket Number: No. 10,760
Parties: Charles DeGruy vs. Jos. A. Aiken & Co.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 43
Pages: 798–804

Head Matter:
No. 10,760.
Charles DeGruy vs. Jos. A. Aiken & Co.
Under a motion to dismiss filed in this court, the solvency of the surety on an appeal bond can not be considered. That is a question primarily for the court a qua, and will be considered here only on appeal taken from the judgment thereon, and when said appeal is regularly tried and submitted.
In afi appeal from a judgment rendered in solido against several defendants, it is sufficient if they all join as principals in the appeal bond and bind themselves to satisfy whatever judgment shall be rendered against them, otherwise that the surety shall be liable in their place. The nature of their obligations under-the bond will depend on the final judgment rendered. If that shall condemn them in solido, they and their surety will be so bound, and it was unnecessary that the bond should expressly stipulate a solidary liability.
The joinder of the husbands of defendant married women merely operates the required marital authorization, and is otherwise harmlessly superfluous.
The authority of the General Assembly to grant to corporations the right to make and maintain ■wharves has long been settled, as well as the authority of the corporations and lessees from them to build wharves with inclines or aprons.
An incline or apron of a wharf is not a safe place to walk upon on a dark night, after a rain, and those who venture on them, without the least necessity, at such times, and when made slippery by the rainfall, assume risks precluding them from recovering damages.
APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. King, J.
A. L. Tissot and Branch K. Miller for Plaintiff and Appellee:
In a suit for damages for personal injuries, a defendant who pleads contributory negligence admits his own negligence. 12 An. I; Am. and Ting. TCncycl. of Daw, p. 18; 31 An. 1088; 32 An. 617; 38 An. 116.
A contractor sued for damages caused by a defect in public work, which he agreed to keep in repair, can not urge want of notice of the defect, where he denies that the defect existed. 37 An. 192*195.
A contractor-who. under a law requiring the leasing of a public work, becomes-lessee thereof with an engagement to keep the work in good repair and condition, is held to a higher measure of care than a municipal corporation, and for damages caused by a breach of his obligation, may be held without notice of non-repair. 109 Mass. 522; IS Pick. (Mass.) 357; 63 Pa. St. 296; 22 Pa. St. 381; 78 Pa. St. 191; 7 Mass. 169.
Baynej Denégre <& Bayne for Defendants and Appellants:
It is sufficient to say that the rule to dismiss embraces no such ground, the only-grounds being that the form of the appeal bond is not proper, and that the surety is not good and solvent. The first was disposed of by the judgment of this court, the second by judgment a quo, and is the only matter now before the court. If any other ground had been before the court below we would have' met it there by evidence, but plaintiff can not now present a new ground for dismissal on a point not raised in his motion, nor presented to the court below.
The right of appeal is a constitutional right, and will be favored, and no appeal dismissed unless the law imperatively commands it. Brewing Co. vs. Boob - inger, -10 An. 277; Murrell vs. Murrell, 33 An. 1283; DoBlanc vs. Rougeau, 39 An. 230; 33 An. 271; 30 An. 1127; Coyle vs. Croevy, 31 An. 539.
If there be no evidence in the record, the judgment reciting that it was founded upon the law and evidence adduced, the Supreme Court Avill assume that the judge a quo had ‘before him sufficient evidence to justify his judgment, Succession of Jno. T. Moore, 12 An. 335; Huntington vs. Bordeaux, 12 An. 318.
The parties were not required to have their evidence reduced to writing, or see that a note is made of the evidence adduced. It was competent for them to have secured a statement of facts. Succession of Moore, 12 An. 335.
The lessees of the public wharves of the city of New Orleans are not insurers of the safety of all who go on said wharves; they are only liable for failure to exercise reasonable and proper care in the repair and maintenance of the wharves.
It being established by the evidence that defendants exercised the highest degree of care and diligence, and did not know of any missing plank, they can not be held liable for injury sustained by plaintiff. '
Especially where the burden of proof being upon the plaintiff he fails to prove that the defect was known to defendants, or had existed a sufficient time before the accident to presume knowledge on his part.
Such is the well established rule with regard to the municipal corporations, and defendants assuming the obligations of the city are not bound to a higher degree of care.
As to municipal corporations see: Dillon on Municipal Corporations, 3d Edition , ►Secs. 1019, 1020, 1015, 1021, 1025; Weightman vs. Washington, 1 Black, 52; Good-enough vs. Oshkosh, 21 Wis. 550; Doulon vs. City of Clinton, 33 Iowa 398; Chicago vs. McCarthy, 75 111. 601; Todd vs. Troy, 61 N. 509; Dewey vs. Detroit, 18 Mich. 307.
The apron or inclined portion of the wharves not being a walking place, or in- • tended as such, and being dangerous, especially in wet weather, the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in going upon that portion of the wharves, and can not recover. Weeks vs. R. R. Co., 11 An. 802; Murray vs. Point R. R., 3L An. 191; Schwartz vs. C. C. R. R. Co., 30 An. 13, 31 An. Ill, 33 An. 156, 82 An. 616; Deikman vs. R. R. Co., 10 An. 787.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Fenner, J.
Nothing is submitted for our present determination except the motion to dismiss filed in this court.
The grounds of the motion are the following:
That the appeal bond filed by the defendants and appellants from said final judgment is defective in form and substance, in this:
1. That while the said judgment casts the defendants in solido, the bond of appeal was given by them jointly, and the surety guarantees their payment of the judgment jointly for an aliquot part of said judgment, and that said surety does not guarantee payment of the judgment by said defendants in solido.
2. That there were parties included as principals in said appeal bond who are not cast by the judgment.
Another ground is assigned in the motion, vi?.: That the surety is not good and solvent, and such as the law requires. 'This, of course, can not be determined by us under a motion to dismiss. It was submitted to the lower court and decided adversely to the appellee, from which decision he has taken a separate appeal. We can not consider the questions involved therein until said appeal shall be tried and submitted. The other grounds above stated have no merit.
The court conforms, in all respects, to the requirements of law.
The judgment appealed from was rendered against the defendant firm and all the members in solido. They all join as principals in the bond, and the condition is that they shall prosecute their appeal and satisfy whatever judgment shall be rendered against them, otherwise that the surety shall be liable in their place. The nature of their obligations under the bond will be determined by the final judgment rendered on the appeal. If that condemns them in solido, they and their surety will be bound accordingly. It was not necessary that the bond should expressly stipulate a solidary liability.
The complaint that the husbands of some of the married defendants are joined as principals has no foundation. Their joinder was manifestly for the purpose of authorizing their wives, and is, otherwise, harmlessly superfluous.
Motion denied.