LEROY J. LEBLANC, APPELLANT,
v.
GLASER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. AND BAY CONTRACTORS, INC., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied reformation of a mortgage but granted rescission to the owners, ordering them to pay a sum to the plaintiff, who was an assignee of a note and mortgage arising from home improvements.
The court granted rescission of the mortgage to the owners upon their proffer of equity, and awarded the plaintiff a judgment for $650, recognizing the contractor's entitlement to a mechanic's lien for improvements made.
Homeowners contracted for improvements, executing a note and mortgage which were assigned to the plaintiff. The owners counterclaimed for rescission, …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
JOSEPH C. HUTCHESON, Jr., Circuit Judge.
This appeal from a judgment in a suit for damages presents, as its principal complaint of error the instruction of the district court that plaintiff could not recover for loss of wages because he was not claiming any such loss, whereas the complaint specifically alleged as one of his items of damage “the loss of earnings, $130,000.00.”
Apparently in so instructing the jury, the judge confused the action for damages which plaintiff had submitted to the jury with his action for maintenance and cure. Whatever was the cause, however, of the confusion, the instruction was erroneous.
The appellees, complaining that the plaintiff failed to properly bring up and present his appeal because of his failure to bring the whole record up and that he failed to serve them with notice of designation of the contents of the record on appeal, urge upon us that the appeal should be dismissed because of the incomplete state of the record. Contending in addition that plaintiff has suffered no injury because a verdict should have been directed in defendants’ favor, appellees argue that plaintiff had a fair trial which resulted in a verdict in his favor to which he was not entitled and that he is not entitled to have the case retried.
In view of the plain error of the instruction appellant complains of, it is clear that the plaintiff has had no real trial of his cause and that the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded for trial anew.
Reversed and remanded.