
    George W. Johnson v. Municipality No. One.
    The liability of municipal corporations for the acts of their agents is a general rule of law too well settled to be seriously questioned.
    APPEAL .by defendant from the Third District Court of New Orleans. Kennedy, J. ,
    The judgment of the district court was as follows : “ The liability of municipal corporations for the acts of their agent is, as ,a general rule, too well settled at -this day to be seriously questioned. Thayer v. City of Boston, 19 Pick, 510. McQaryv. City .of Lafayette, 12 Rob. 668. Chase v. Mayor et al., 9 L. R., 343, and 3 Hill, .531. It is unnecessary to notice the special limitations of the general rule; the .case before.the court falls within none of these. In the case in 9 L. R. just referred to, the decision turning upon the evidence, was in favor of the corporation, but the principle of liability was assumed by the court without question; the court, however, seem to lay down the rule that it is for the plaintiff to prove negligence or misconduct, on the part of the agents of the corporation. Does- the evidence in this case meet the requisition of that rule ? In my judgment it does. The law makes it the duty of the keeper of the police jails of the three municipalities to advertise in French and English in the 'State paper, and in the official gazette of the municipality in which said jail is situated, once a week during three consecutive months, such slave or slaves whose owners are unknown, or reside out of the State of Louisiana, as now or hereafter ma.y be detained in their respective jails,” &c. Act of 10th March, 1845, p. 77. This duty was not pei'foi'med by the keeper of the jail. It is also in proof that the plaintiff’s agent called at the jail and made enquiries for the negro, and was turned away with the reply, that “ he was not there;” the result would probably have been the .sume, when he called the second time, if it had not occurred to him to ask leave to enter and examine all the slaves confined in the jail. It is further in proof, that said agent found the negro in a very cold room, without a bed, couch, or chair, with nothing but a single blanket to lie upon, and so emaciated and feeble as then to be unable to get up on his knees without the assistance of another man. Finally, it is in proof, that he died a few days after he was removed to his master’s house, notwithstanding he received good nursing and medical aid. The defendants’ witness declare that he was indisposed when he entered the jail, on the 15th of August; they do not, however, state what his complaint was. It could have been nothing serious, for the doctor svas not called in to him, until the 29th October, two months and a half after his imprisonment; on the other hand, if it was of a serious nature, it was gross negligence not to have called in the doctor sooner. It was, in all probability, neither dysentery nor diarrhoea.
    “The physician of the jail tells us, that when he saw the boy for the first time, viz., on the 29th October, he was but slightly indisposed, and that on the second visit, he could perceive no progress in the disease. Now, taking into consideration the prison fare, and the prison treatment and accommodation, and the proneness of negroes in general to diarrhoea, according to Doctor Turpin’s statement, it seems fair to infer, that if the boy had entered the jail with disordered bowels, the disease would have made considerable progress, by the 29th of October, the day when the doctor first saw him and found him only slightly indisposed; since, from a state of slight indisposition on that day, we find him reduced, about twenty-one days after, to a state of incurability; for we must so presume, as he died, notwithstanding the care he received.
    “ My opinion on the whole, therefore, is, that the disease was contracted in tire prison ; that it was aggravated by the prison fare ; and that the circumstances in which the patient was found by the witness Bloom, far from favoring a cure, were neither fit nor decent for a human being of any color. I think a sufficiently strong case of omission of duty has been made out against the agents of the defendants, to throw on the latter the burthen to prove that the plaintiff has not been injured thereby; in other words, that the same results would have happened, if the negro had remained in his master’s possession; which certainly has not been attempted.
    “ The plaintiff estimates his slave at nine hundred dollars; his witnesses adopt a higher figure. There is no doubt that his value was seriously diminished by his having absconded, and the estimate, both of the plaintiff and his witnesses, appear to have been made without reference to that fact. The plaintiff has probably claimed all that his slave was worth, under any circumstances. On the other hand, the defendant’s witness states, that he has seen runaway negroes sold for three hundred dollars. There is no evidence that this negro was a runaway in the sense of the law. C. C. art. 2505.
    “ The nearest approach to his true value will probably be obtained by the difference between the plaintiff’s claim and the price of runaways attested by the defendant’s witness.
    “ It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed, that judgment be entered in favor of plaintiff, against Municipality No. One, for the sum of six hundred dollars, and costs of suit.
    
      J. Q. Bradford, for appellee. Preaux, for appellant.
   The judgment of the court was pronounced by

Eustis, C. J.

For the reasons assigned by the judge of the district court, it is ordered that the judgment be affirmed, with costs.  