Laroque v. Ovalasiti

13 So. 2d 747, 1943 La. App. LEXIS 344
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedMay 24, 1943
DocketNo. 17950.
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 13 So. 2d 747 (Laroque v. Ovalasiti) 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
Laroque v. Ovalasiti, 13 So. 2d 747, 1943 La. App. LEXIS 344 (La. Ct. App. 1943).

Opinion

This is a suit by a stationer against a prize fight promoter for a printing bill in the sum of $104.66. The suit was defended upon the ground that the stationery was not ordered by the defendant promoter, but by some one else to whom the plaintiff should look for payment.

There was judgment below in favor of plaintiff as prayed for and defendant has appealed.

It appears that Lou Ovalasiti, who was a pipe fitter, was also an experienced prize fight promoter in his spare time, having been in the business for over seven years and that it is customary for the promoter to pay for the expenses of a prize fight including the printing of the tickets. On this particular occasion Ovalasiti was promoting a fight in which an individual by the name of Cleo Shan was participating. Shan's manager was a party by the name of Summers. Summers went to Adrien J. Laroque, the plaintiff, and ordered the printing for the payment of which this suit was instituted. While Ovalasiti contends that Summers had agreed to pay for the printing and that he was not responsible for the bill, he, nevertheless, called at the plaintiff's place of business and inspected the proof and had no other tickets printed for the particular fight in which Shan participated. Summers, it seems, has left the City and, according to Ovalasiti is a "slicker". Ovalasiti also called at plaintiff's place of business with his truck and brought the tickets to Weaver's barroom. Under the circumstances we have reached the conclusion that Summers was acting for Ovalasiti and, consequently, Ovalasiti should pay the printing bill.

For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Skye Realty Co. v. Diversified Insurance Agency, Inc.
221 So. 2d 871 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1969)
International Union of Operating Engineers v. Guy Scroggins, Inc.
168 So. 2d 724 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1964)
Goldman v. Greater Louisiana Corp.
126 So. 2d 771 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 So. 2d 747, 1943 La. App. LEXIS 344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laroque-v-ovalasiti-lactapp-1943.