Frank De Latour, Inc. v. Boscareno

126 So. 743, 12 La. App. 596, 1930 La. App. LEXIS 58
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedMarch 10, 1930
DocketNo. 13,224
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 126 So. 743 (Frank De Latour, Inc. v. Boscareno) 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
Frank De Latour, Inc. v. Boscareno, 126 So. 743, 12 La. App. 596, 1930 La. App. LEXIS 58 (La. Ct. App. 1930).

Opinion

HIGGINS, J.

This is a suit on an open account for goods and merchandise alleged to have been sold and delivered by plaintiff to the defendant. Defendant filed a general denial.

There was judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the suit, and plaintiff has appealed.

The record' shows that when the defendant was placed on the stand for the purpose of cross-examination, he admitted the amount sued for was correct; that the merchandise was sold azid delivered to him; and that the price was fair and reasonable. When defendant sought to introduce evidence tending to show payment of.the account, plaintiff objected on the ground that the answer was a general denial and a plea of payment, being a special defense, had to be specially pleaded in order that evidence could be introduced on such an issue. The trial court overruled the objection and permitted the evidence to be introduced. We believe that this was error. A plea of payment is a special defense and must be specially pleaded in order that evi[597]*597deuce tending to prove payment may be introduced. Times-Picayune Publishing Company vs. Jacobs, 13 La. App. 1, 126 So. 741, this day decided, and Weil v. Weil, 13 La. App. 8, 126 So. 742, this day decided.

For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is reversed, and it is now ordered, adjudged, and decreed that there be judgment in favor of Frank De Latour, Inc., plaintiff, and against Anthony Boscareno, defendant, in the full sum of $153.63, together with • legal interest from judicial demand until paid. Defendant and appellee to pay the costs of both courts.

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

Related

J. R. Watkins Co. v. Calhoun
52 So. 2d 528 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1951)
Eustis v. St. Germain
161 So. 203 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
126 So. 743, 12 La. App. 596, 1930 La. App. LEXIS 58, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-de-latour-inc-v-boscareno-lactapp-1930.