Case Name: HOFFMAN VS. ATCHESON ET AL.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1839-05
Citations: 13 La. 476
Docket Number: 
Parties: HOFFMAN VS. ATCHESON ET AL.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 476–477

Head Matter:
HOFFMAN VS. ATCHESON ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, JUDGE BUCHANAN PRESIDING.
When it is shown that the defendant acknowledged the plaintiff’s services were worth a certain sum, he cannot be allowed to plead prescription against any part of the claim.
Judgment affirmed, with ten per cent, damages, as for a frivolous appeal.
This suit commenced by attachment. The plaintiff claimed the sum of four hundred and twenty-nine dollars for his wages as carpenter on board the steam-boat Mississippian, and had her attached.
The defendant pleaded a general denial, and the prescription of one year.
It was shown on the trial that the plaintiff and defendants acknowledged, after the former had left the boat, that the balance due the plaintiff was two hundred and thirty-eight dollars and twenty-five cents, for which judgment was rendered. The defendants appealed.
Bradford, for the plaintiff.
1. W. Smith, contra.

Opinion:
Rost, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
The plaintiff attached the steamer Mississippian for wages due him as carpenter on board of her.
The counsel appointed by the court to represent the absent defendants filed a general denial.
On the trial of the cause, the plaintiff adduced proof of the length of time during which he had been employed, and several of the witnesses stated what they conceived his services to be worth : it being shown by the defendants' counsel, that the, plaintiff had agreed to receive from the officers of the boat a sum less than the sum claimed, or than that to which the evidence might have entitled him, the District Court gave judgment in his favor for that sum, and the defendants appealed.
The sum allowed appears to have been acknowledged by one of the defendants as being justly due the plaintiff and we are at a loss to understand how the defendants could have expected to maintain a plea of prescription for any part of it. This appeal was taken for delay, and the plaintiff is entitled to the damages which he claims.
It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed, with costs in both courts, and ten per cent, damages for a frivolous appeal.