Associated Motors, Inc. v. Burk

119 So. 451, 10 La. App. 5, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 374
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedJanuary 7, 1929
DocketNo. 11,717
StatusPublished
Cited by562 cases

This text of 119 So. 451 (Associated Motors, Inc. v. Burk) 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
Associated Motors, Inc. v. Burk, 119 So. 451, 10 La. App. 5, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 374 (La. Ct. App. 1929).

Opinion

WESTERFIELD, J.

This is a suit on an open account in the sum of $146.17. The record consists of the testimony of plaintiff’s witnesses alone, one of whom testifies that the account was presented to defendant, who made no objection to any item appearing thereon, but, on the contrary, promised to pay the account.

The defense, as presented to this Court, amounts to the contention that the plaintiff should have been non-suited for failure to prove the several items making up the account.

The defense is without merit. The silence of defendant at the time the statement of account was rendered to him, together with his promise to pay, amounts to an acknowledgment of its correctness and gives the claim sued on the status of [6]*6an account stated. Oakley vs. Weil, 7 La. Ann. 169; Bloch Bros. vs. Ferckaud, 13 Orl. App. 369. Flower vs. Millaudon, 19 La. 195; Putnam & King vs. Live Oak Mercantile Co., 122 La. 507, 47 So. 846.

The appellee has answered, asking for damages for frivolous appeal. We consider the appeal frivolous and will allow damages, which we fix at five, per cent.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed. It is further ordered that plaintiff recover damages for frivolous appeal in an amount equal to five per cent of the sum sued on.

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

Related

State of Louisiana v. Dionte Bracken
Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2025
State v. Saulny
220 So. 3d 871 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2017)
State v. Payne
220 So. 3d 882 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2017)
State v. Mouton
219 So. 3d 1244 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2017)
State v. Meadows
219 So. 3d 1200 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2017)
Plaisance v. Jefferson Parish School Board
218 So. 3d 708 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2017)
State v. Savage
218 So. 3d 714 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2017)
Price v. Chain Electric Co.
216 So. 3d 388 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2017)
Dean v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
217 So. 3d 611 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2017)
State v. Camp
215 So. 3d 464 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2017)
Espinoza v. Doe
213 So. 3d 399 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2017)
State v. Luckey
212 So. 3d 1220 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2017)
Boesch v. Boesch
210 So. 3d 937 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2017)
State v. Engle
213 So. 3d 1261 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2017)
Morice v. Alan Yedor Roofing & Construction
216 So. 3d 1072 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2017)
State v. Byers
213 So. 3d 491 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2017)
Stevens v. St. Tammany Parish Government
212 So. 3d 568 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2017)
McMillion v. East Jefferson General Hospital
193 So. 3d 448 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2016)
State v. Otkins-Victor
193 So. 3d 479 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
119 So. 451, 10 La. App. 5, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/associated-motors-inc-v-burk-lactapp-1929.