Chamberlain v. Worrell

38 La. Ann. 347
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedApril 15, 1886
DocketNo. 9669
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 38 La. Ann. 347 (Chamberlain v. Worrell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chamberlain v. Worrell, 38 La. Ann. 347 (La. 1886).

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Fenner, J.

Defendant, Worrell, is the keeper of a public landing on the Mississippi river, in which capacity he received from plaintiff six hales of cotton to he shipped by him to plaintiff’s cotton factors in New Orleans, Shattnck & Hoffman.

Plaintiff being indebted to Worrell, the latter, instead of complying with the terms of his bailment, diverted the six hales and consigned them to his own meichants in New Orleans.

This was undoubtedly a tortious conversion, without legal excuse. Plaintiff brings the present action for damages, claiming the value of the cotton and about $6000 as consequential damages.

The case was tried by a jury, who disallowed all the damages claimed, except the value of the cotton, for which verdict and judgment were rendered, and from this judgment plaintiff is the appellant.

Tlie jury has simply applied the general rule governing the measure of damages in actions for tortious conversion, which is the value of the property converted with interest. N. O. Draining Co. vs. DeLizardi, 2 Ann. 280; Badille vs. Tio, 7 Ann. 487; 1 Sutherland on Damages, 173; 3 Id. 487, et seq.

The rule ,is not w ithout exceptions, as where the conversion is accompanied by violence or personal outrage, or where other damage is shown to have resulted clearly and directly from the wrongful act.

But we liave carefully examined the testimony in the case and have considered the various points made by counsel, and without further particularizing them, we are not disposed to disturb the verdict of the jury, which we think is sustained by the law and does substantial justice.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

A.B.C. Oil Burner Heating Co. v. Palmer
28 So. 2d 462 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1946)
Bryson v. Bates-Crumley Chevrolet Co.
166 So. 879 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1936)
Craddock v. Jones
143 So. 529 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1932)
Hitt v. Herndon
117 So. 568 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1927)
Leurey v. Bank of Baton Rouge
58 So. 1022 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1912)
Jennings-Heywood Oil Syndicate v. Houssiere-Latreille Oil Co.
54 So. 318 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
38 La. Ann. 347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chamberlain-v-worrell-la-1886.