Mills-Morris Co. v. Pearson

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Mills-Morris Co. v. Pearson

8 La. App. 155, 1928 La. App. LEXIS 457

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 14, 1928

DocketNo. 2383

StatusPublished

This text of 8 La. App. 155 (Mills-Morris Co. v. Pearson) 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

Mills-Morris Co. v. Pearson, 8 La. App. 155, 1928 La. App. LEXIS 457 (La. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

WEBB, J.

The defendant appeals from a judgment rendered against him for a balance due upon open account, and appellant has not made any appearance m this court.

The defense set up was that certain articles shown on the account had been sold on approval, and had not been accepted, that other articles were defective, and that plaintiff’s salesman had agreed to permit' defendant to return the articles, and that others had not been ordered.

Th evidence shows that all of the articles for ' which defendant claimed a credit had been ordered by him, and while the evidence is conflicting as to the sale on approval, and the ' alleged understanding between the salesman and defendant, it does not show, however, that the salesman had any authority to agree to permit defendant to return the goods, nor does it' establish that any of the articles were defective, or not suited for the purposes for which they were designed, and the defendant has no cause to complain of the judgment, which is affirmed.

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

WEBB, J.

The defendant appeals from a judgment rendered against him for a balance due upon open account, and appellant has not made any appearance m this court.

The defense set up was that certain articles shown on the account had been sold on approval, and had not been accepted, that other articles were defective, and that plaintiff’s salesman had agreed to permit' defendant to return the articles, and that others had not been ordered.

Th evidence shows that all of the articles for ' which defendant claimed a credit had been ordered by him, and while the evidence is conflicting as to the sale on approval, and the ' alleged understanding between the salesman and defendant, it does not show, however, that the salesman had any authority to agree to permit defendant to return the goods, nor does it' establish that any of the articles were defective, or not suited for the purposes for which they were designed, and the defendant has no cause to complain of the judgment, which is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 La. App. 155, 1928 La. App. LEXIS 457, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mills-morris-co-v-pearson-lactapp-1928.