Armstrong v. Mooney
This text of 1 Rob. 167 (Armstrong v. Mooney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The defendant is appellant from a judgment in a redhibitory action, and has built his hope of relief at our hands, on an allegation of the absence of any proof of the tender of the slave before the action was brought. The record shows that Preaux deposed, that when the plaintiff came to his office to institute this suit, he instructed him to make a tender of the slave to the defendant; that afterwards, they met the defendant and made him a tender of the slave, which he refused to take back, saying, sue me if you think yourself right.
This case is not to be distinguished from that of Bowman v. Ware, 18 La. 597, in which we held that, “in a redhibitory action for the rescission of the sale and refunding the price, an offer to return the slaves is sufficient if it be rejected, as there is then no necessity of making an actual tender.”
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1 Rob. 167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armstrong-v-mooney-la-1841.