Milling v. Sulphur Timber & Lumber Co.

Citations

• 119 La. 585
• 44 So. 307
• 1907 La. LEXIS 529

Syllabus

<p>1. Specific Performance — Unauthorized Contract.</p> <p>As one cannot be bound by a contract which he has not authorized, which does not purport to have been made in his behalf, or name, and of the making of which he was purposely kept in ignorance, so, he has no standing to enforce the specific performance of such contract.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — Eor cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 44, Specific Performance, §§ 38-43.]</p> <p>2. Same.</p> <p>The fact that money subscribed for a particular purpose is used by the representatives of the subscribers for the purposes of a contract by which such representatives, alone, but not the subscribers, are bound, does not entitle the latter to the specific performance of such contract.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — Eor cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 44, Specific Performance, §§ 38-43.]</p> <p>3.Injunction — Issuance Without Bond-Liability for Damages.</p> <p>The issuance and maintenance, without bond, at the instance of a litigant who demands specific performance of an alleged contract affecting certain property, of a restraining order prohibiting the owner from making an advantageous sale of such property, is unauthorized by law, and amounts to an abuse of the process of the court, and the litigant obtaining the same is liable for the damages thereby occasioned, including the fee of defendant’s attorney for services rendered in the effort to have the order set aside.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — Eor cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 27, Injunction, S§ 606-609.]</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>