Prechter v. Konrad

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Prechter v. Konrad

8 La. App. 155, 1927 La. App. LEXIS 661

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedDecember 12, 1927

DocketNo. 10,478

StatusPublished

This text of 8 La. App. 155 (Prechter v. Konrad) 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

Prechter v. Konrad, 8 La. App. 155, 1927 La. App. LEXIS 661 (La. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

WESTERFIELD, J.

This is a suit by a building contractor for the sum of $621.22 alleged to be due him by defendant under a verbal contract for repairs to property owned by defendant.

The defense is difficult to understand and does not impress us as serious. The claim is made that the work was to be done under what is called a “cost plus” plan, and not under a contract. The defendant testifies to this effect and says that the understanding was that the work was to cost him approximately $550.00 and a 10 per cent commission of $50.00 or $600.00. Plaintiff is demanding but $21.00 in excess of the approximate cost according to defendant.

The necessity of proving the case by more than one witness, or by one witness and corroborating circumstances because of the amount involved is fully met by the evidence.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

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

WESTERFIELD, J.

This is a suit by a building contractor for the sum of $621.22 alleged to be due him by defendant under a verbal contract for repairs to property owned by defendant.

The defense is difficult to understand and does not impress us as serious. The claim is made that the work was to be done under what is called a “cost plus” plan, and not under a contract. The defendant testifies to this effect and says that the understanding was that the work was to cost him approximately $550.00 and a 10 per cent commission of $50.00 or $600.00. Plaintiff is demanding but $21.00 in excess of the approximate cost according to defendant.

The necessity of proving the case by more than one witness, or by one witness and corroborating circumstances because of the amount involved is fully met by the evidence.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 La. App. 155, 1927 La. App. LEXIS 661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prechter-v-konrad-lactapp-1927.