Bell v. Lacy

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Bell v. Lacy

16 La. Ann. 51

DecidedJanuary 15, 1861

StatusPublished

This text of 16 La. Ann. 51 (Bell v. Lacy) 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

Bell v. Lacy, 16 La. Ann. 51 (La. 1861).

Pincite

Opinion

Düffel, J.

The plaintiff sues the defendants for the recovery of the price of a slave purchased by him from them, on the ground that the slave was, at the time of the purchase, addicted to the vice of running away, to the knowlege of the vendors, who fraudulently concealed the fact from him.

The evidence, however, contradicts the averment of the petition as to the concealment, and shows, on the contrary, that the vendee was informed of the vice before the sale; consequently, the slave was sold “ guaranteed in title only.”

The latent defect, or vice of character, having thus been brought home to the knowlege of the plaintiff, he cannot maintain his action. C. C. 2498; Hough v. Vickers, 6 An. 724; Phipps v. Berger, 12 An. 111; Hennen’s Digest, p. 1408, Nos. 14 and 19.

The District Judge was of a contrary opinion.

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the court a qua be avoided and reversed; .and it is further ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the demand of the plaintiff be rejected with costs in both courts.

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

Düffel, J.

The plaintiff sues the defendants for the recovery of the price of a slave purchased by him from them, on the ground that the slave was, at the time of the purchase, addicted to the vice of running away, to the knowlege of the vendors, who fraudulently concealed the fact from him.

The evidence, however, contradicts the averment of the petition as to the concealment, and shows, on the contrary, that the vendee was informed of the vice before the sale; consequently, the slave was sold “ guaranteed in title only.”

The latent defect, or vice of character, having thus been brought home to the knowlege of the plaintiff, he cannot maintain his action. C. C. 2498; Hough v. Vickers, 6 An. 724; Phipps v. Berger, 12 An. 111; Hennen’s Digest, p. 1408, Nos. 14 and 19.

The District Judge was of a contrary opinion.

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the court a qua be avoided and reversed; .and it is further ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the demand of the plaintiff be rejected with costs in both courts.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 La. Ann. 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-lacy-la-1861.