Dufort. v. Abadie

23 La. Ann. 280
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedMarch 15, 1871
DocketNo. 2202
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 23 La. Ann. 280 (Dufort. v. Abadie) 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
Dufort. v. Abadie, 23 La. Ann. 280 (La. 1871).

Opinion

Howell, J.

The plaintiff claims $5000 damages for slanderous words uttered by the defendant, and the court a qua having allowed $500, the defendant appealed.

His counsel avows that the object of the appeal is to obtain a reduction of the damages assessed, as excessive, and relies on the case of Miller v. Roy, 10 An. 231, to support his demand. In that case, $5000-were claimed for having been called a thief, etc., as in this case; $300' were allowed, and on appeal the judgment was affirmed. The court, said: There is evidence tending to show that the plaintiff’s good repute suffered in some degree from the charges brought against him in-such intemperate language by the defendant, and it is not pretended that the charges had any foundation in truth; ” while in this case,, counsel contends there is no evidence tending to show that the plaintiff’s good repute suffered in any degree. As said in the case quoted: “ Injuries to the feelings and to one’s social standing are not susceptible of a precise admeasurement. Still, in a very limited class of cases, such injuries are recognized as a legitimate ground of action.” We-think the evidence in the record shows this to be one of that limited class of cases, and that the damages awarded by the district judge are not excessive. The defendant was emphatic in denouncing plaintiff, in his presence and before a crowd, as a “thief and rascal,” and several times repeated the epithets, notwithstanding the remonstrance of plaintiff and a friend, and it is shown that the charges were the subject of frequent comment among plaintiff’s acquaintances as calculated to have-an injurious effect on his standing. The circumstances bring the case-within the ruling in those of Bonnin v. Elliott, 19 An. 322, and Mohrman v. Ohse, 17 An. 64.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Fatjo v. Seidel
33 So. 737 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1903)
Prime v. Eastwood
45 Iowa 640 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1877)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
23 La. Ann. 280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dufort-v-abadie-la-1871.