Kernion v. Hills
Supreme Court of Louisiana
from the Commercial Court of New Orleans, Watts, J. The laws on the subject of the inspection of tobacco do not require that the inspectors shall make samples. Bullard & Curry’s Dig. 508-10. The amount claimed is not for services “ under color of office,” but for extra-labor rendered by the plaintiffs as individuals. See Hills v. Kernion, 7 Rob. 522. The services for which the extra-charge claimed by the plaintiffs was made, was part of the duty of inspection.
Read the full summary
from the Commercial Court of New Orleans, Watts, J. The laws on the subject of the inspection of tobacco do not require that the inspectors shall make samples. Bullard & Curry’s Dig. 508-10. The amount claimed is not for services “ under color of office,” but for extra-labor rendered by the plaintiffs as individuals. See Hills v. Kernion, 7 Rob. 522. The services for which the extra-charge claimed by the plaintiffs was made, was part of the duty of inspection. Usage under the law establishes this. Civ. Code, arts. 195,1960, 1961. Halsey v. Brown, 3 Day, 346. Consuetudo est altera lex. 4 Coke,…
1Opinion of the Court
The judgment of the court was pronounced by
Siidei/l, J.
This is a suit brought by six individuals, who formerly held the office of tobacco inspectors in New Orleans, to recover from the defendants, *420commission merchants, the sum of $1310, as a compensation for making, tying up, and labelling samples of certain hogsheads of tobacco, inspected by them in their official capacity. The charge for the particular services above stated, and which were rendered in the years 1842 and 1843, being at the rate of forty cents per hogshead, being an extra charge beyond the sixty cents, the inspection fees…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Dodson v. McCurninSupreme Court of Iowa · 1917
- Southern Bitulithic Co. v. Algiers Ry. & Lighting Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1912