Menefee Motor Co. v. Miller

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Menefee Motor Co. v. Miller

141 So. 805

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 16, 1932

DocketNo. 14072

StatusPublished

This text of 141 So. 805 (Menefee Motor Co. v. Miller) 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

Menefee Motor Co. v. Miller, 141 So. 805 (La. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

WESTERFIELD, J.

Plaintiff repaired defendant’s Chevrolet automobile for the agreed sum of $138.96, which defendant declined to pay, whereupon, asserting its lien, plaintiff caused the automobile to be sequestered. The sequestration was bonded and the suit defended upon the ground that the repairs were not properly made.

The trial court concluded that the defense had not been sustained by the evidence and rendered judgment in plaintiff’s favor for the amount claimed, maintaining the writ of sequestration. From that judgment defendant has appealed.

It is our opinion that the conclusion of the trial court upon the question of fact involved was correct.

Consequently, and 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

WESTERFIELD, J.

Plaintiff repaired defendant’s Chevrolet automobile for the agreed sum of $138.96, which defendant declined to pay, whereupon, asserting its lien, plaintiff caused the automobile to be sequestered. The sequestration was bonded and the suit defended upon the ground that the repairs were not properly made.

The trial court concluded that the defense had not been sustained by the evidence and rendered judgment in plaintiff’s favor for the amount claimed, maintaining the writ of sequestration. From that judgment defendant has appealed.

It is our opinion that the conclusion of the trial court upon the question of fact involved was correct.

Consequently, and for the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 So. 805, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/menefee-motor-co-v-miller-lactapp-1932.