A. Stef Lumber Co. v. O'Rourke

Louisiana Court of Appeal

A. Stef Lumber Co. v. O'Rourke

119 So. 572, 9 La. App. 750, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 61

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJanuary 21, 1929

DocketNo. 11,731

StatusPublished

This text of 119 So. 572 (A. Stef Lumber Co. v. O'Rourke) 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

A. Stef Lumber Co. v. O'Rourke, 119 So. 572, 9 La. App. 750, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 61 (La. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

JANVIER, J.

Plaintiff, a lumber company, on various dates sold and delivered to defendant lumber, factory work and building material at a total price of $2,194.33. ■ Some of the factory work was purchased from another concern by the plaintiff and delivered- to defendant.

The other concern, for some reason, delayed billing plaintiff for part of this factory work with the result that when plaintiff billed defendant', the bill was $162.45 less than it should have been. Defendant paid this bill and was under the impression that he had settled the account in full. Several months later, however, the other concern, from which some of the mill work had been purchased, billed the plaintiff for $162.45, and plaintiff, on checking its records and books, found that it had never billed defendant for this particular mill work. . It thereupon sent him a -bill, which he refused to pay. This suit resulted.

Several of plaintiff’s employees testified as to the correctness of the account, and as to the fact that this mill work they delivered to defendant had never been paid for. Defendant’s failure to testify was not explained. As to the effect of his failure to testify, see Aubudon Homestead Association vs. A. Stef Lumber Co., 158 La. 1054, 105 So. 62. There is no evidence which would justify us in reversing the judgment of the trial court.

For these reasons the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

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

JANVIER, J.

Plaintiff, a lumber company, on various dates sold and delivered to defendant lumber, factory work and building material at a total price of $2,194.33. ■ Some of the factory work was purchased from another concern by the plaintiff and delivered- to defendant.

The other concern, for some reason, delayed billing plaintiff for part of this factory work with the result that when plaintiff billed defendant', the bill was $162.45 less than it should have been. Defendant paid this bill and was under the impression that he had settled the account in full. Several months later, however, the other concern, from which some of the mill work had been purchased, billed the plaintiff for $162.45, and plaintiff, on checking its records and books, found that it had never billed defendant for this particular mill work. . It thereupon sent him a -bill, which he refused to pay. This suit resulted.

Several of plaintiff’s employees testified as to the correctness of the account, and as to the fact that this mill work they delivered to defendant had never been paid for. Defendant’s failure to testify was not explained. As to the effect of his failure to testify, see Aubudon Homestead Association vs. A. Stef Lumber Co., 158 La. 1054, 105 So. 62. There is no evidence which would justify us in reversing the judgment of the trial court.

For these reasons the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 So. 572, 9 La. App. 750, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 61, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-stef-lumber-co-v-orourke-lactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack