Court Opinion

ID: 9865929
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 23:49:36.477725+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:08:06.388109
License: Public Domain

On the Merits.
The plaintiff, in a suit for an injunction to prevent the sale of his property under a writ, cannot withhold grounds which should have been set up in a prior suit for the same purpose, and then, after being defeated in the first suit, file another suit for the same purpose and re-urge the grounds set up in the first suit and add to them the additional grounds withheld in the first action. To permit such a practice would enable a debtor to file almost an endless chain-!of-■ suits to enjoin the sale *825of the seized property by alleging only one or more of several grounds and withholding other grounds for another suit. Brooks v. Magee, Sheriff, et al., 126 La. 388, 52 So. 551.
 Where the plaintiff is aware of other grounds for an injunction other than those set up in his petition to prevent a sale of his property, he cannot in a subsequent suit filed for the same purpose avail himself of the grounds which he knew of at the time of filing his first suit. Courts look with disfavor on a multiplicity of suits to attain a purpose that can be fully litigated in one suit, and thus prevent a person from being annoyed and harassed by several suits designed to secure one particular form of relief. Givens v. Arcadia Cotton Oil & Mfg. Co., La.App., 175 So. 91; Porter v. Morere et al., 30 La.Ann. 230.
Practically all of the grounds were urged by the plaintiff in suit 7914 to enjoin the sale of his property as he is now urging in this suit 9537 to obtain the same relief. These grounds arise out of claims which he contends the bank owes him for salary, commissions, reports, etc., for services rendered by him to the local farm association. While his claims are not presented in exactly the same form nor amounts in this suit as in the former suit, yet there can be no question but that his present claims existed and were known to him when he filed the other suit. The former suit disposed of these claims insofar as his right to claim injunctive relief, or to assert as off-set against the mortgage for these claims for commissions, salary, reports, etc., was concerned, and the trial court was correct in sustaining the plea of res judicata and in denying the injunction sought on grounds already foreclosed by the former judgment.
For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed at the cost of appellant.
DORE, J., not participating.