Brandin Slate Co. v. Creidman

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Brandin Slate Co. v. Creidman

120 So. 274, 10 La. App. 7, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 413

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 11, 1929

DocketNo. 11,719

StatusPublished

This text of 120 So. 274 (Brandin Slate Co. v. Creidman) 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

Brandin Slate Co. v. Creidman, 120 So. 274, 10 La. App. 7, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 413 (La. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

WESTERFIELD, J.

Plaintiff, a corporation engaged in the business of selling slate and other roofing materials, and constructing roofs, sued defendant for $131.53, an alleged balance said to be due on a roofing contract. Defendant denies any indebtedness and reconvenes for $300.00.

There was judgment for plaintiff as prayed for and against defendant dismissing his reconventional demand. Defendant has appealed.

The position of defendant is that the roof installed by plaintiff, leaked, and caused damage to his property, hence his reconventional demand.

It is clearly established that the roof leaked, but we are convinced that the leaks were due to faulty installation of the “flashing,” an operation not included in plaintiff’s undertaking. We are confirmed in this view by the fact that six months after the completion of the roof plaintiff was engaged to install another roof for defendant, and by the further fact, that the entire cost of the roof, about $600.00, was paid except $131.53, the amount sued for, a sum insufficient to compensate for the alleged damage to the property caused by the leaks, which is fixed in the reconventional demand at $300.00.

For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

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

WESTERFIELD, J.

Plaintiff, a corporation engaged in the business of selling slate and other roofing materials, and constructing roofs, sued defendant for $131.53, an alleged balance said to be due on a roofing contract. Defendant denies any indebtedness and reconvenes for $300.00.

There was judgment for plaintiff as prayed for and against defendant dismissing his reconventional demand. Defendant has appealed.

The position of defendant is that the roof installed by plaintiff, leaked, and caused damage to his property, hence his reconventional demand.

It is clearly established that the roof leaked, but we are convinced that the leaks were due to faulty installation of the “flashing,” an operation not included in plaintiff’s undertaking. We are confirmed in this view by the fact that six months after the completion of the roof plaintiff was engaged to install another roof for defendant, and by the further fact, that the entire cost of the roof, about $600.00, was paid except $131.53, the amount sued for, a sum insufficient to compensate for the alleged damage to the property caused by the leaks, which is fixed in the reconventional demand at $300.00.

For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 So. 274, 10 La. App. 7, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brandin-slate-co-v-creidman-lactapp-1929.