Carrano v. Colombel
Carrano v. Colombel, 114 So. 637 (La. 1927).
Cited by
- Martin v. Security Indus. Ins. Co. 367 So. 2d 420 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
- Spain v. Travelers Insurance Company 332 So. 2d 827 La. 1976
- Ducote v. Life Insurance Company of Louisiana 245 So. 2d 531 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
- Borer v. Security Industrial Life Insurance Co. 245 So. 2d 5 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
- Audubon Life Insurance Co. v. Lauzervich 242 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
- Aucoin v. First National Life Insurance 204 So. 2d 703 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
- Zimmerman v. United Benefit Life Insurance Co. 199 So. 2d 14 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
- Quartararo v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. 199 So. 2d 20 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
- Meaux v. Southern Construction Corporation 159 So. 2d 156 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
- Lafleur v. All American Insurance Co. 157 So. 2d 254 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
- Broussard v. Fidelity Standard Life Insurance Co. 146 So. 2d 292 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
- Matthews v. National Life & Accident Insurance 88 So. 2d 454 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- 129 La. 120 not in our corpus
- Succession of Lavergne 55 So. 734
- Ornelas v. Newburger 139 La. 832
Opinion text
ROGERS, J. Plaintiff instituted this suit to enforce specific performance of a contract to sell certain real estate situated in the city of New Orleans. Defendant set up that the contract was not binding upon her, because her signature thereto had been obtained'by duress. The judgment was for plaintiff, and defendant appealed. An.examination of the record discloses the utter failure of defendant to make out her defense. She does not pretend that plaintiff exercised any duress whatever upon her. According to her answer, the duress of which she complains was that of the real estate agent to whom she had intrusted her property for sale. On the trial of the case, however, she testified that it was the son of the agent, and not the agent himself, by whom she was coerced to sign the contract. When called upon to specify of what the duress consisted, she was unable to show any act whatever of coercion brought to bear upon her. Apart from the denials by the agent and his son that any duress was exercised upon the defendant, we are convinced, by her own testimony, that she sought to recede from *741 the contract, after she had signed it and after she had given the agent a written order on the Union Homestead Association for her title in order that he might deliver it to the prospective purchaser for examination, only because the gossip of her relatives, friends, and neighbors induced her to believe that she was selling her property too cheap. The appellee has filed an answer to the appeal, alleging that it is frivolous, and praying for damages. We are unable to grant his demand. Damages for a frivolous appeal are awarded only in eases where a money judgment is involved. Code Prac. art. 907; Arrowsmith v. Rappelge, 19. La. Ann. 328; Succession of Lavergne, 129 La. 120 , 55 So. 734 ; Ornelas v. Silvan Newburger & Co., 139 La. 832 , 72 So. 372 . For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.