Hiligsberg v. New-Orleans Canal & Banking Co.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Hiligsberg v. New-Orleans Canal & Banking Co.

6 La. 228

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMarch 15, 1834

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 6 La. 228 (Hiligsberg v. New-Orleans Canal & Banking Co.) 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

Hiligsberg v. New-Orleans Canal & Banking Co., 6 La. 228 (La. 1834).

Pincite

Opinion

Mathews, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a redhibitory action, in which the price of a slave is claimed to be rescinded, on account of being an habitual runaway. The court below considering that the plaintiff had not supported his claim by evidence in conformity with the 2505th articles of the La. Code, gave judgment of non suit, from which he appealed.

The record contains the testimony of one witness, who declares that the slave in question, whilst in the possession of one of his former owners ran away twice, but does not state the length of time he was absent in either of these _ abscondmgs. Another witness prove, that he ran away once, but does not specify an absence for a period of time suffi. cient to satisfy the provisions of the article of the Code, before cited. We are of opinion that the plaintiff has not made out his case by evidences as required by law.

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

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

Mathews, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a redhibitory action, in which the price of a slave is claimed to be rescinded, on account of being an habitual runaway. The court below considering that the plaintiff had not supported his claim by evidence in conformity with the 2505th articles of the La. Code, gave judgment of non suit, from which he appealed.

The record contains the testimony of one witness, who declares that the slave in question, whilst in the possession of one of his former owners ran away twice, but does not state the length of time he was absent in either of these _ abscondmgs. Another witness prove, that he ran away once, but does not specify an absence for a period of time suffi. cient to satisfy the provisions of the article of the Code, before cited. We are of opinion that the plaintiff has not made out his case by evidences as required by law.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 La. 228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hiligsberg-v-new-orleans-canal-banking-co-la-1834.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack