Southern Demolishing Co. v. Allen

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Southern Demolishing Co. v. Allen

120 So. 812, 11 La. App. 114, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 546

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 4, 1929

DocketNo. 11,753

StatusPublished

This text of 120 So. 812 (Southern Demolishing Co. v. Allen) 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

Southern Demolishing Co. v. Allen, 120 So. 812, 11 La. App. 114, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 546 (La. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

WESTERFIELD, J.

This is a suit on an open account for $206.91, the alleged value of certain lumber sold and delivered to defendant. The sale and delivery are admitted, but it is claimed that the proper credit was not allowed defendant for the value of material returned by him, which was found to be unsuitable, and not as represented by plaintiff.

There was judgment for plaintiff as prayed for, subject to a credit of $188.75. Defendant has appealed.

There is sufficient evidence in the record to support the findings of the trial court upon the question of fact involved, and from our study of the record we are unable to say that there was any manifest error in the judgment complained of.

For the reasons assigned, 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 on an open account for $206.91, the alleged value of certain lumber sold and delivered to defendant. The sale and delivery are admitted, but it is claimed that the proper credit was not allowed defendant for the value of material returned by him, which was found to be unsuitable, and not as represented by plaintiff.

There was judgment for plaintiff as prayed for, subject to a credit of $188.75. Defendant has appealed.

There is sufficient evidence in the record to support the findings of the trial court upon the question of fact involved, and from our study of the record we are unable to say that there was any manifest error in the judgment complained of.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 So. 812, 11 La. App. 114, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-demolishing-co-v-allen-lactapp-1929.