Baptiste, F. W. C. v. Soulie, F. W. C.

13 La. 268
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedApril 15, 1839
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 13 La. 268 (Baptiste, F. W. C. v. Soulie, F. W. C.) 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.

Bluebook
Baptiste, F. W. C. v. Soulie, F. W. C., 13 La. 268 (La. 1839).

Opinion

Rost, J„

delivered tbe opinion of the court.

This is a redhibitory action, for the rescission of a sale of a mulatto woman and her child, on the ground that before and at the time of the sale, the said slaves were, to the knowledge of the defendant, affected with a pulmonary disease, of which they both died.

The defendant admits the sale, pleads the general issue, . and the prescription of one year.

This cause was tried by a jury, who gave their verdict in favor of the defendant, and the motion for a new trial, made by t^e having been overruled, she appealed,

The questions involved in the case are questions of fact, which the jury had better opportunities to decide than we can Possess > and after a careful examination of the evidence submitted to them, we see nothing which could induce us to reverse the judgment.

The plaintiff took a bill of exceptions to the refusal of the court t0 admit in evidence the record of a suit, by Miramond, O’Duhigg & Co., against Marcelette Baptiste and Widow Ferdinand.

The proceedings had no reference to this suit, and the only .1 . ■ . .. object in attempting to introduce them, was to introduce with them the testimony of Doctor Fortin, taken in that C0U].j; ancj on f¡[e jn the record. The attempt was clearly 3 r J illegal. A record may be introduced in evidence, to show that a judgment was rendered, but the parole evidence upon which wag 0htained cannot, because it forms part of the record, be received as proof in another suit. If in any particular case such evidence is admissible, it is so per se on other grounds, and independently of the record to which it is attached. We think the judge did not err."

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the Parish Court be affirmed, with costs.

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

Related

Morace v. Avoyelles Wholesale Grocery Co.
39 So. 2d 105 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1948)
Bell v. Canal Bank & Trust Co.
190 So. 359 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1939)
Wunderlich v. Simpkin
5 La. App. 35 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1926)
Roussell v. Hughes
106 So. 332 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1925)
Nolan v. Harris
11 Teiss. 191 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1914)
Weil v. Schwartz
21 So. 859 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1897)
Darcy v. Labennes
31 La. 404 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1879)
Florance v. Bachemin
3 La. Ann. 174 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1848)
Hermann, Briggs & Co. v. Hootsell
17 La. 419 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1841)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 La. 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baptiste-f-w-c-v-soulie-f-w-c-la-1839.