Oliver H. Van Horn Co., Inc. v. Canal Steel Works, Inc.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Oliver H. Van Horn Co., Inc. v. Canal Steel Works, Inc.

128 So. 553, 14 La. App. 70, 1930 La. App. LEXIS 400

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 2, 1930

DocketNo. 13,308

StatusPublished

This text of 128 So. 553 (Oliver H. Van Horn Co., Inc. v. Canal Steel Works, Inc.) 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

Oliver H. Van Horn Co., Inc. v. Canal Steel Works, Inc., 128 So. 553, 14 La. App. 70, 1930 La. App. LEXIS 400 (La. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

WESTERFIELD, J.

The question presented by this appeal involves the veracity of witnesses whose testimony is in sharp conflict. If the testimony of plaintiff’s witnesses is to be believed, plaintiff sold to defendant an eleqtric welder for $1,100 and is entitled to judgment for that amount. If defendant’s witnesses are to be credited, plaintiff did not sell the welding machine, but left it with defendant on probation and defendant is not obligated to pay for it.

The witnesses supporting plaintiff’s version of the transaction are about equal in number to those who maintain defendant’s position, and all are more or less interested in the litigation. The case is obviously one which must be determined by the weight of the finding of the trial court.

The judgment appealed from was in plaintiff’s favor, as prayed for, and, for the reasons herein assigned, it is affirmed.

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

WESTERFIELD, J.

The question presented by this appeal involves the veracity of witnesses whose testimony is in sharp conflict. If the testimony of plaintiff’s witnesses is to be believed, plaintiff sold to defendant an eleqtric welder for $1,100 and is entitled to judgment for that amount. If defendant’s witnesses are to be credited, plaintiff did not sell the welding machine, but left it with defendant on probation and defendant is not obligated to pay for it.

The witnesses supporting plaintiff’s version of the transaction are about equal in number to those who maintain defendant’s position, and all are more or less interested in the litigation. The case is obviously one which must be determined by the weight of the finding of the trial court.

The judgment appealed from was in plaintiff’s favor, as prayed for, and, for the reasons herein assigned, it is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 So. 553, 14 La. App. 70, 1930 La. App. LEXIS 400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oliver-h-van-horn-co-inc-v-canal-steel-works-inc-lactapp-1930.