707 Tire Service, Inc. v. Offutt

Louisiana Court of Appeal

707 Tire Service, Inc. v. Offutt

152 So. 2d 576, 1963 La. App. LEXIS 2251

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedApril 1, 1963

DocketNo. 9909

StatusPublished

This text of 152 So. 2d 576 (707 Tire Service, Inc. v. Offutt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

707 Tire Service, Inc. v. Offutt, 152 So. 2d 576, 1963 La. App. LEXIS 2251 (La. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

HARDY, Judge.

Plaintiff instituted this action on an open account, and, in answer, defendant asserted a reconventional demand. From judgment in favor of plaintiff on the main demand and in favor of defendant on the reconventional demand slightly in excess of plaintiff’s claim, plaintiff has appealed from judgment with respect to the allowance of defendant’s reconventional claim.

Plaintiff is a dealer in automobile and truck tires and this action is based upon an unpaid balance of defendant’s account. On trial defendant admitted the indebtedness as asserted by plaintiff in the sum of $354.86 and then proceeded to establish by his testimony and that of a former employee the defective nature of certain tires sold to him by plaintiff, for which he claimed the allowance of the price thereof. Before this court it is contended on behalf of appellant that the defendant failed to prove with any degree of certainty the amounts of his re-[577]*577conventional claim. The resulting issue is factual in nature.

The amount claimed in defendant’s re-conventional demand was the sum of $918.-30, of which the amount of $414.74 was allowed by the district judge.

Our examination of the record has convinced us that the claim of failure of certainty of proof is without merit. Defendant, plaintiff in reconvention, testified explicitly, and by reference to certain invoices filed in evidence, that the tires covered thereby were defective and that he sustained a total loss of the purchase price. The testimony as to the defective nature of certain of these tires was corroborated by a former employee of defendant, who testified in his behalf. The record contains no evidence which would serve to contradict this testimony.

We find no error in the judgment appealed from and, accordingly,, the same is affirmed at appellant’s cost.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HARDY, Judge.

Plaintiff instituted this action on an open account, and, in answer, defendant asserted a reconventional demand. From judgment in favor of plaintiff on the main demand and in favor of defendant on the reconventional demand slightly in excess of plaintiff’s claim, plaintiff has appealed from judgment with respect to the allowance of defendant’s reconventional claim.

Plaintiff is a dealer in automobile and truck tires and this action is based upon an unpaid balance of defendant’s account. On trial defendant admitted the indebtedness as asserted by plaintiff in the sum of $354.86 and then proceeded to establish by his testimony and that of a former employee the defective nature of certain tires sold to him by plaintiff, for which he claimed the allowance of the price thereof. Before this court it is contended on behalf of appellant that the defendant failed to prove with any degree of certainty the amounts of his re-[577]*577conventional claim. The resulting issue is factual in nature.

The amount claimed in defendant’s re-conventional demand was the sum of $918.-30, of which the amount of $414.74 was allowed by the district judge.

Our examination of the record has convinced us that the claim of failure of certainty of proof is without merit. Defendant, plaintiff in reconvention, testified explicitly, and by reference to certain invoices filed in evidence, that the tires covered thereby were defective and that he sustained a total loss of the purchase price. The testimony as to the defective nature of certain of these tires was corroborated by a former employee of defendant, who testified in his behalf. The record contains no evidence which would serve to contradict this testimony.

We find no error in the judgment appealed from and, accordingly,, the same is affirmed at appellant’s cost.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 So. 2d 576, 1963 La. App. LEXIS 2251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/707-tire-service-inc-v-offutt-lactapp-1963.