General Contract Purchase Corp. v. Dillman

Louisiana Court of Appeal

General Contract Purchase Corp. v. Dillman

137 So. 654, 18 La. App. 286, 1931 La. App. LEXIS 625

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedNovember 18, 1931

DocketNo. 3908

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 137 So. 654 (General Contract Purchase Corp. v. Dillman) 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

General Contract Purchase Corp. v. Dillman, 137 So. 654, 18 La. App. 286, 1931 La. App. LEXIS 625 (La. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

TALIAFERRO, J.

Defendant purchased from Southern Cine Company, Inc., one Electrolux gas refrigerator for the price of $414.78, paying $37.50 cash and executed her note to the seller for the balance of $377.28, payable in 18 monthly installments of $20.96 each. This note was secured by chattel mortgage and vendor’s lien and privilege on the refrigerator, and in due course was acquired by plaintiff before maturity. The present suit was filed on the note coupled with foreclosure of the mortgage and lien securing its payment.

Defendant resists the suit by alleging that the refrigerator was defective when delivered to her; that it would not refrigerate to that degree necessary to meet the purposes for which it was purchased; that the gas used to generate the cold and freezing temperature in the refrigerator’, on account of defects therein, escaped into its different compartments and so affected foods kept therein for preservation as to render them unfit for human consumption.

On trial of the case plaintiff introduced the note sued on and a certified copy of the mortgage and vendor’s lien securing payment of same, all of which are fin authentic form, and rested its case.

Defendant was sworn as a witness in her own behalf and an effort was made to interrogate her concerning the purchase of the refrigerator from Southern Cine Compand, Inc. This evidence was objected to for the reason the note sued on had passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser before maturity, and such defenses as defendant had set up were cut off on that account. The objection was sustained. Defendant offered no further testimony. The case was closed in that condition, and judgment rendered for plaintiff as prayed for. It is from this judgment that defendant appealed.

In this court defendant made no appearance, filed no brief, and presumably has abandoned her appeal.

The record justifies the judgment appealed from, and it is affirmed, with costs.

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

TALIAFERRO, J.

Defendant purchased from Southern Cine Company, Inc., one Electrolux gas refrigerator for the price of $414.78, paying $37.50 cash and executed her note to the seller for the balance of $377.28, payable in 18 monthly installments of $20.96 each. This note was secured by chattel mortgage and vendor’s lien and privilege on the refrigerator, and in due course was acquired by plaintiff before maturity. The present suit was filed on the note coupled with foreclosure of the mortgage and lien securing its payment.

Defendant resists the suit by alleging that the refrigerator was defective when delivered to her; that it would not refrigerate to that degree necessary to meet the purposes for which it was purchased; that the gas used to generate the cold and freezing temperature in the refrigerator’, on account of defects therein, escaped into its different compartments and so affected foods kept therein for preservation as to render them unfit for human consumption.

On trial of the case plaintiff introduced the note sued on and a certified copy of the mortgage and vendor’s lien securing payment of same, all of which are fin authentic form, and rested its case.

Defendant was sworn as a witness in her own behalf and an effort was made to interrogate her concerning the purchase of the refrigerator from Southern Cine Compand, Inc. This evidence was objected to for the reason the note sued on had passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser before maturity, and such defenses as defendant had set up were cut off on that account. The objection was sustained. Defendant offered no further testimony. The case was closed in that condition, and judgment rendered for plaintiff as prayed for. It is from this judgment that defendant appealed.

In this court defendant made no appearance, filed no brief, and presumably has abandoned her appeal.

The record justifies the judgment appealed from, and it is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 So. 654, 18 La. App. 286, 1931 La. App. LEXIS 625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/general-contract-purchase-corp-v-dillman-lactapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack