Kernan v. Humble

25 So. 431, 51 La. Ann. 389, 1899 La. LEXIS 412
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedFebruary 20, 1899
DocketNo. 12,985
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 25 So. 431 (Kernan v. Humble) 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
Kernan v. Humble, 25 So. 431, 51 La. Ann. 389, 1899 La. LEXIS 412 (La. 1899).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Watkins, J.

This is an action in damages for a trespass alleged to have been committed by the several defendants with various persons unknown, on the plantation and premises of the plaintiff, and for which the latter demands compensation in the sum of $4,250.00.

The circumstances under which the alleged trespass was perpetrated [390]*390are peculiar and the best statement of it which can be made is that furnished in plaintiff’s petition, from which we make the following extract, viz:

“That on the nights of September 28th and 29th, 1897, the said Peter Humble, Sr., the said Kirke Humble, the said Arthur Humble, the said Peter Humble, Jr., and‘Horace Humble, the latter .being a minor, and a child of Henry Smith Humble, for whose conduct, acts and torts the said Henry Smith Humble, his father is liable and responsible, all of said parish and State, did go on the said Riverside plantation, of the said Kernan, as petitioner is informed and believes, and go to the house of one R. Walker Hays, a tenant of the said Kernan, on the said plantation, and did then and there, as petitioner is informed and believes, threaten the said Hays to kill him and burn his house, if he reported an offense committed by the said parties at an entertainment given on said place on September 25th, 1897, -for the jjurpose of raising funds to build a church; and at the house of one Mike Turner, another tenant and employee of petitioner.

^hat the said Peter Humble, Sr., Kirke Humble, Arthur Humble, Peter Humble, Jr., and Horace Humble, the said Horace Humble being a minor and child of the said Henry Smith Humble, with sundry other parties, as petitioner is informed and believes, did pursue two colored mulatto women, Minerva Beattie, wife of John Beattie, and Rhoda Hays, both tenants of petitioner on said Riverside plantation, into the house of one Mike Turner, tenant on petitioner’s Riverside plantation, and then and there threaten the said Mike Turner and his wife and other parties then in said house, that if they did not turn out of the house the said mulatto women, they would kill the said Mike Turner,’and his wife; and otherwise terrorized and threatened the said Mike Turner and family that if they reported the said offense to the authorities at Clinton, they would kill the said Turner and his wife, and burn all the houses on the place.

“That the aforesaid Humbles, in company with a large crowd of persons from the county of Amite, State of Mississippi, as petitioner is informed and believes, on the night of Tuesday, September 28th, 1897, did go upon the said plantation, and go to the house of R. W. Hays, on said plantation, and notified the said Hays that they had burnt up one house on the plantation, and that they would burn every other house if he reported the said offense to the authorities at Clinton, and that they would kill the said Hays. That the said Hays, [391]*391being so terrified, was afraid to remain in his said dwelling, and that on Wednesday, the 29th of September, for fear that his said residence would be burned, or that he would be killed, or some great bodily injury done him, moved out of said house his family and his furniture, and other things, and sought safety elsewhere.

“That the said Humbles assembled the^said crowd and announced their intention of bull-doozing the said John Beattie, another tenant and employee of petitioner; that the said John Beattie with his family,his house having been burned as petitioner believes by accident, although some of the said parties declared they had burned the same,- and in consequence of said threats, the said John Beattie, being a tenant of petitioner, abandoned his crop, turned loose his working animals, and left the place; that the said John Beattie, thereupon, transferred all of his crops and other things on said place to-petitioner.

“That on the night of Wednesday, September 29th, 1897, the aforesaid Humbles, with a large crowd, some of whom were from the State of Mississippi, visited the residence of the said R. W. Hays, who, having heard of their threatened coming to burn his house, to kill or inflict serious bodily harm on him, had vacated the same, and the' said crowd found no person therein when they came; that they wantonly killed his dog in the house, and fired their pistols and rifles to' a great extent; that the other lessees on said plantation, as petitioner' is informed and believes, are so terrified and alarmed, that they are-afraid to stay in their houses, and afraid to go to the fields and gather' their crops;

“That the said tenants of petitioner, as petitioner is informed and' believes, have done nothing whatever to justify, extenuate or excuse • the aforesaid Humbles and their said crowd for their said illegal acts ■ and doings; that some of the tenants of petitioner, as petitioner is informed and believes, have abandoned their crops; others are afraid’ to go into their fields to gather their crops, and petitioner fears that' they will leave said plantation, and that said crops are being seriously damaged by stock breaking in thereon, and that the same is-liable to waste, for the want of other labor to gather the same.

“That petitioner is informed and believes he will find great difficulty in getting labor for the balance of this year, for the next year; and the succeeding years, to operate the said plantation, because, of being in terror of the said Humbles; that petitioner to protect his employees and tenants has been compelled to buy arms, ammunition, [392]*392■employ guards, and hire teams and send them to the said Riverside plantation at great expense, because of the said unlawful and nefarious acts of the. aforesaid Humbles and their co-conspirators. That •.the crowd from Amite County, State of Mississippi, was present, and .took part in said unlawful acts on the aforesaid two nights, by the ■invitation and solicitation of the aforesaid Humbles.

"That petitioner has been damaged by the said unlawful and nefarious acts of the aforesaid Humbles in the sum of forty-two hundred and fifty dollars in the manner following, to-wit:

"For terrorizing and demoralizing said tenants on said Riverside plantation of petitioner, two thousand dollars.

"For estimated amount paid and to be paid for guards, teams, guns and ammunition to protect the tenants and employees on said plantation, two hundred and fifty dollars.

“For damage to crop by deprivation of stock, waste and loss of labor to gather the same, estimated five hundred dollars.

‘“For injury to the reputation of the said place, rendering it very 'difficult to get labor to operate said plantation by reason of the •threats and intimidations of the aforesaid Humbles and their co-•conspirators, the sum of one thousand dollars.

■“That petitioner believes, that for the protection of petitioner’s rights, an injunction is necessary to forbid and restrain the aforesaid Humbles from entering upon the aforesaid Riverside plantation ■of the petitioner, from interfering with, threatening, or troubling in ¡any manner or form whatever, the tenants and employees of petitioner on said plantation.”

Subsequently, plaintiff filed an amended petition, the purport of which is, that since the filing of his original petition, he has made the ■discovery that Peter Humble, Jr., is a minor, and that his true name 'is Ivy Humble. That he is a son of Henry Smith Humble, who is ‘liable for all the acts of trespass committed by his minor son, and for ¡the injury inflicted by him.

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

Related

James v. Wilson
95 S.W.3d 875 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 2002)
Moss v. Guarisco
409 So. 2d 323 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1981)
Ledet v. Continental Grain Co.
380 So. 2d 655 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1980)
Tabb v. Norred
277 So. 2d 223 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1973)
S. & R. Gas Co. v. Stephens
90 So. 2d 487 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1956)
Lewis v. Hicks
87 So. 2d 867 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1956)
Craddock v. Jones
143 So. 529 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1932)
Buras v. MacHella
134 So. 751 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1931)
Cassidy v. Holliman & Spiers
126 So. 733 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1930)
Irwin v. Lorio
126 So. 669 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1930)
Muller v. Davis-Wood Lumber Co.
2 La. App. 359 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1925)
Rush v. Town of Farmerville
101 So. 243 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1924)
Sandlin v. Coyle
78 So. 261 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1918)
Rogers v. Vicksburg, S. & P. R.
194 F. 65 (Fifth Circuit, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 So. 431, 51 La. Ann. 389, 1899 La. LEXIS 412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kernan-v-humble-la-1899.