Nickerson v. Hodges

84 So. 37, 146 La. 735, 9 A.L.R. 361, 1920 La. LEXIS 1785
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedFebruary 2, 1920
DocketNo. 22454
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 84 So. 37 (Nickerson v. Hodges) 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
Nickerson v. Hodges, 84 So. 37, 146 La. 735, 9 A.L.R. 361, 1920 La. LEXIS 1785 (La. 1920).

Opinion

DAWKINS, J.

Miss Carrie E. Nickerson brought this suit against I-I. R. Hayes, William or “Bud” Baker, John W. Smith, Mrs. Fannie Smith, Bliss Minnie Smith, A. J. Hodges, G. G. Gatling, R. M. Coyle, Sam P. D. Coyle, and Dr. Charles Cdyle, claiming $15,-000 as damages, alleged to have been caused in the form of financial outlay, loss in business, mental and physical suffering, humiliation, -and injury to reputation and social standing, all growing out of an alleged malicious deception and conspiracy with respect to the finding of a supposed pot of gold. Subsequent to the filing of the petition, and before the trial, the said Miss Nickerson died, and her legal heirs, some 10 in number, were made parties plaintiff, and now prosecute this suit.

All of the defendants, save and except Miss Minnie Smith, William or “Bud” Baker, and I-I. R. Hayes, filed, in effect, a general denial, denying any knowledge of' or connection with the matters out of which the alleged damages arose. These three defendants filed a joint answer, in which, after denying the injuries charged, or that there was any malicious or unlawful intent, admitted that they had fixed up an old copper bucket or pot, filled with dirt and rocks, and had buried it at a point where the said Miss Carrie Nickerson and her helpers would likely dig in search of an imaginary pot of gold; that she and her said associates had been, for several months, digging over the property of defendant, John W. Smith, on information obtained from a negro fortune teller in the c-ity of Shreveport, and boarding at the home of the said Smith, father of the said Minnie Smith, without paying therefor, .and generally acting in such a manner as to make themselves nuisances to [737]*737the community; that the course adopted by these three defendants was for the purpose of convincing the explorers of their folly; that it was intended as a practical joke, and succeeded in accomplishing the purpose mentioned.

For some reason the case was allowed to remain on the docket of the lower court for more than three years before being tried, when it was finally submitted to a jury, and resulted in a verdict in favor of the defendants. After an unsuccessful motion for .a new trial, the plaintiffs prosecuted this appeal.

Statement of Facts.

Miss Nickerson was a kinswoman of Burton aDd Lawson Deck, the exact degree of relationship not being fully shown by the record, and there had been, in the family, a tradition that these two gentlemen, who died many years ago, had prior to their deaths, buried a large amount of gold com on the place now owned by the defendant John W. Smith, or on another near by. She was employed by the California Perfume Company to solicit orders for their wares in the towns, villages, etc., in Webster and other parishes, and on the occasion of a visit to the city of Shreveport seems to have interviewed a negro fortune teller, who told her that her said relatives had buried the gold, and gave her what purported to be a map or plat showing its location on the property of Smith. Thereafter, with the help of some three or four other persons, principally relatives, and one Bushong, she spent several months digging, at intervals, around the house and on the premises of Smith, who seems to have extended them a cordial welcome, and to have permitted them to dig almost without limit as to time and place, and in addition boarded the fortune hunters, while so engaged, without charge. We assume that this was due, perhaps, to the.fact that he, too, had a slight hope that they might find something, and he was to receive a part thereof for his concessions. At any rate, the diggers pursued their course with such persistence and at such lengths, digging around the roots of shade trees, the pillars of his house, etc., until finally, his daughter, the said Minnie Smith, William or “Bud” Baker, and H. R. Hayes conceived the idea of themselves providing a “pot of gold” for the explorers to find. Accordingly they obtained an old copper kettle or bucket, filled it with rocks and wet dirt, and buried it in an old chimney seat on the adjoining place, where the searchers had been or were intending to also prospect for the supposed treasure. Two lids or tops were placed on 'the pot, the first being fastened down with hay wire; then a note was written by Hayes, dated, according to some, July 1, 1884, and, as to others, 1784, directing whoever should find the .pot not to open it for three days, and to notify all the heirs. This note was wrapped in tin, placed between the first and second lids, and the latter was also securely fastened down with hay wire. This took place some time toward the latter part of March, and, according to these three defendants, was to have been an April fool; but plans miscarried somewhat, and the proper opportunity for the. “find” did not present itself until April 14th. On that day Miss Nickerson and her associates were searching and digging near the point where the pot had been buried, when one Grady Hayes, a brother of H. R. Hayes, following directions from the latter, and apparently helping the explorers to hunt for the gold, dug up the pot and gave the alarm. All of those in the vicinity, of course, rushed to the spot, those who were “in” on the secret being apparently as much excited as the rest, and, after some discussion, it was decided to remove the lid. When this was done, the note was discovered, and H. R. [739]*739Hayes advised Miss Nickerson tliat lie thought it proper that its directions should be carried out, and that the bank at Cotton Valley, a few miles distant, was the best place to deposit the “gold” for safe-keeping, until the delays could run and the heirs be notified, as requested. Following this suggestion, the pot was placed in a gunny sack, tied up, and taken to the bank for deposit. Defendant Gatling was the cashier of the bank, but refused to give a receipt for the deposit as a “pot of gold,” because, as he insisted, he did not- know what it contained.

As might have been supposed, it did not take long for the news to spread that Miss Nickerson and her associates-" in the search for fortune, had found a pot of gold, and the discussion and interest in the matter became so general that defendant A. J. Hodges, vice president of the' bank, went over from his place of business in Cotton Valley to the bank, and he and Gatling, after talking the matter over, decided to examine the pot, so that, in event it did contain gold, proper precautions to guard the bank might be taken, pending the return of Miss Nicker-son and the appearance of those who might claim the fortune. These two undid the wire sufficiently to peep into the pot, and discovered that it apparently contained only dirt. They then replaced the lid and held their tongues until the reappearance of Miss Nickerson. However, the secret leaked out from other sources, that the whole matter was a joke, and this information too, became pretty well distributed.

After depositing the pot in the bank, Miss Nickerson went to Minden, La., and induced Judge R. C. Drew to agree to accompany her to Cotton Valley on the following Monday (the deposit at the bank having been made on Saturday) for the purpose of seeing that the ceremonies surrounding the opening of the treasure were properly conducted. Judge Drew swears that he had heard in some way that the matter was a joke, and so informed Miss Nickerson, warning her not to place too much faith in the idea that she was about to come into a fortune, but that finally, because of his friendly relations with and kindly feeling toward her, he consented and did go, mainly to gratify her wishes in the premises.

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

Related

Sullivan v. Malta Park
156 So. 3d 751 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2014)
Opinion Number
Louisiana Attorney General Reports, 2003
Neurosurgery & Spine Surgery, S.C. v. Goldman
Appellate Court of Illinois, 2003
NEUROSURGERY AND SPINE SURGERY v. Goldman
790 N.E.2d 925 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 2003)
Gugliuzza v. KCMC, INC.
593 So. 2d 845 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1992)
White v. Monsanto Co.
585 So. 2d 1205 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1991)
Moresi v. State, Dept. of Wildlife & Fisheries
567 So. 2d 1081 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1990)
Directional Wireline Services v. Tillett
552 So. 2d 1201 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1989)
Sparacello v. Andrews
501 So. 2d 269 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1986)
Byrnes v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc.
562 F. Supp. 892 (E.D. Louisiana, 1983)
Ferlito v. Cecola
419 So. 2d 102 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1982)
Elza v. Liberty Loan Corp.
426 N.E.2d 1302 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1981)
Maggio v. St. Francis Medical Center, Inc.
391 So. 2d 948 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1980)
Waldon v. Covington
415 A.2d 1070 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1980)
Steadman v. SOUTH CEN. BELL TEL. CO.
362 So. 2d 1144 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1978)
Jones v. Harris
371 A.2d 1104 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1977)
Farr v. Johnson
308 So. 2d 884 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1975)
Boudreaux v. Allstate Finance Corporation
217 So. 2d 439 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1968)
Slaughter v. Slaughter
142 S.E.2d 683 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
84 So. 37, 146 La. 735, 9 A.L.R. 361, 1920 La. LEXIS 1785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nickerson-v-hodges-la-1920.