American Dist. Tel. Co. v. Rault

378 So. 2d 194, 1979 La. App. LEXIS 3366
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedNovember 27, 1979
Docket10418
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 378 So. 2d 194 (American Dist. Tel. Co. v. Rault) 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
American Dist. Tel. Co. v. Rault, 378 So. 2d 194, 1979 La. App. LEXIS 3366 (La. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinion

378 So.2d 194 (1979)

AMERICAN DISTRICT TELEGRAPH COMPANY
v.
Joseph M. RAULT, Jr. d/b/a the Rault Center.

No. 10418.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

November 27, 1979.

Louise A. Ferrand, Hartel, Kenny & Dimitry, New Orleans, for plaintiff.

Ford J. Dieth, Leach, Paysse & Baldwin, New Orleans, for defendant.

Before SAMUEL, REDMANN and SCHOTT, JJ.

REDMANN, Judge.

The prima facie proof necessary under La.C.C.P. 1702 for a default judgment on a suit "on an open account" consists of the account itself, verified by a competent witness's affidavit (or testimony) of its correctness.

In this case, neither affidavit nor testimony shows more than the competence of the *195 witness and the correctness of the amount claimed, and there is no copy of any account in the record nor any reference to the account (except for its balance) in the testimony.

The general rule of La.C.C. 2277 is that "contracts or agreements, above five hundred dollars in value, must be proved at least by one credible witness, and other corroborating circumstances." The special rule of C.C.P. 1702 allows the credible witness to give (fundamentally hearsay) testimony by affidavit, and accepts the business record of the account itself (also fundamentally hearsay from salesclerks and bookkeepers) as corroboration. But the naked declaration of an employee that the balance of some unproduced account is correct does not constitute the prima facie proof required for a default judgment in a suit on an open account under C.C.P. 1702.

Set aside; remanded.

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

Related

Sessions & Fishman v. Liquid Air Corp.
616 So. 2d 1254 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1993)
Designer's Gallery v. Hagen
611 So. 2d 737 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1992)
Gulf States Asphalt v. BATON ROUGE SERV.
572 So. 2d 148 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1990)
Concept 29 Uniform Service v. Roe
542 So. 2d 609 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1989)
IBEROAMERICANO ADVERTISING & PUB. CO. v. Schweikert
464 So. 2d 899 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1985)
Jim McCary, Inc. v. Price
391 So. 2d 921 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1980)
Buddy Patterson Gateway Gulf Service v. Howell
392 So. 2d 140 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
378 So. 2d 194, 1979 La. App. LEXIS 3366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-dist-tel-co-v-rault-lactapp-1979.