Lopez v. Collier

Fifth Circuit

Lopez v. Collier

129 F. 104, 63 C.C.A. 606, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4027

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 5, 1904

DocketNo. 1,331

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 129 F. 104 (Lopez v. Collier) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lopez v. Collier, 129 F. 104, 63 C.C.A. 606, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4027 (5th Cir. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit for a balance due for work done upon a naphtha launch belonging to Eopez, defendant in the court below, and appellant here, and for materials furnished in the course of the work. The total alleged cost of the material, work, etc., was $1,693. Payments on account and credits amounted to $803. The balance claimed was $889.61. The defendant claims that it was agreed and understood that the work was not to cost more than $1,000; that it was not good work; that the payments made, added to the amounts paid out, subsequent to the return of the boat by Collier, to have work done which should have been done by Collier, leave nothing due to libelant. There was a decree in favor of the libelant for $604.67, from which this appeal is taken.

[105]*105The case presents simple questions of fact. The evidence is conflicting. Several witnesses testified for libelant, and proved up his case. They were contradicted by several witnesses produced by defendant to prove up his case. The testimony was all taken in presence of the trial judge, who thus had an opportunity to see the witnesses and observe their demeanor while testifying; and, on the evidence, we are not able to say that he reached an erroneous conclusion.

The decree appealed from is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit for a balance due for work done upon a naphtha launch belonging to Eopez, defendant in the court below, and appellant here, and for materials furnished in the course of the work. The total alleged cost of the material, work, etc., was $1,693. Payments on account and credits amounted to $803. The balance claimed was $889.61. The defendant claims that it was agreed and understood that the work was not to cost more than $1,000; that it was not good work; that the payments made, added to the amounts paid out, subsequent to the return of the boat by Collier, to have work done which should have been done by Collier, leave nothing due to libelant. There was a decree in favor of the libelant for $604.67, from which this appeal is taken.

[105]*105The case presents simple questions of fact. The evidence is conflicting. Several witnesses testified for libelant, and proved up his case. They were contradicted by several witnesses produced by defendant to prove up his case. The testimony was all taken in presence of the trial judge, who thus had an opportunity to see the witnesses and observe their demeanor while testifying; and, on the evidence, we are not able to say that he reached an erroneous conclusion.

The decree appealed from is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 F. 104, 63 C.C.A. 606, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4027, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lopez-v-collier-ca5-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack