Richardson v. Bernhardt

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Richardson v. Bernhardt

1 Gunby 31

DecidedJuly 1, 1885

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Gunby 31 (Richardson v. Bernhardt) 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

Richardson v. Bernhardt, 1 Gunby 31 (La. Ct. App. 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

Mayo, J.

Where plaintiff alleges on a contract, he cannot, as a general rule, prove a quantum meruit; but if the parties differ in their testimony as to what the contract was, evidence of the value of the services may properly be received to what amount and conditions of remuneration be most probable. 33 An. 59.

2. The members of the jury were doubtless acquainted with the parties and the witnesses. They heard the testimony and were much better able to judge of its proper weight than we can be, who are called upon to determine the case from the dry, cold record before us.

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

Mayo, J.

Where plaintiff alleges on a contract, he cannot, as a general rule, prove a quantum meruit; but if the parties differ in their testimony as to what the contract was, evidence of the value of the services may properly be received to what amount and conditions of remuneration be most probable. 33 An. 59.

2. The members of the jury were doubtless acquainted with the parties and the witnesses. They heard the testimony and were much better able to judge of its proper weight than we can be, who are called upon to determine the case from the dry, cold record before us.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Gunby 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richardson-v-bernhardt-lactapp-1885.