Stewart v. Machin

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Stewart v. Machin

123 So. 160, 10 La. App. 754, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 186

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 27, 1929

DocketNo. 11,081

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 123 So. 160 (Stewart v. Machin) 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

Stewart v. Machin, 123 So. 160, 10 La. App. 754, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 186 (La. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

JANVIER, J.

The legal question presented in this case is identical with that in the matter entitled Samuel B. Stewart vs. C. C. Clay, No. 11,080 of the docket of this court, which we on this day, to-wit: May 27, 1929, decided. The facts are also almost identical. The question involved is whether or not the Heatrola home heater sold by plaintiff to defendant complied with the warranties and promises made.

It is very evident that it did not do so. The testimony is convincing that the heater produced practically no heat at all. Plaintiff’s salesman admits .that he went to Miss Machin’s house and examined it to determine what type of heater she should have, and whether her house could be satisfactorily heated by the heatrola, so that it appears in this case, as it did in the Clay case, that defendant, in purchasing the heater, relied entirely on the recommendations and warranties of plaintiff and plaintiff’s salesman.

The only distinction between this case and the Clay case is that in Miss Ma-chin’s residence, it was contended that the flue was defective. It appears, however, that the flue was carefully examined by plaintiff’s employees before the heater was installed and they found nothing wrong therewith. It also appears that another stove was connected later to the same flue and that this other stove worked perfectly.

We are of the opinion, as we were in the case of Stewart vs. Clay, that extravagant warranties were given and that the 'heater did not comply therewith.

The trial judge rejected plaintiff’s demand and rendered judgment in favor of defendant, in reconvention, for $55, the amount which she had paid on the (purchase price of the heater. We think this judgment was correct and, for the reasons given in the matter of Stewart vs. Clay, above referred to, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment appealed from be and it is affirmed, at the cost of appellant.

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

JANVIER, J.

The legal question presented in this case is identical with that in the matter entitled Samuel B. Stewart vs. C. C. Clay, No. 11,080 of the docket of this court, which we on this day, to-wit: May 27, 1929, decided. The facts are also almost identical. The question involved is whether or not the Heatrola home heater sold by plaintiff to defendant complied with the warranties and promises made.

It is very evident that it did not do so. The testimony is convincing that the heater produced practically no heat at all. Plaintiff’s salesman admits .that he went to Miss Machin’s house and examined it to determine what type of heater she should have, and whether her house could be satisfactorily heated by the heatrola, so that it appears in this case, as it did in the Clay case, that defendant, in purchasing the heater, relied entirely on the recommendations and warranties of plaintiff and plaintiff’s salesman.

The only distinction between this case and the Clay case is that in Miss Ma-chin’s residence, it was contended that the flue was defective. It appears, however, that the flue was carefully examined by plaintiff’s employees before the heater was installed and they found nothing wrong therewith. It also appears that another stove was connected later to the same flue and that this other stove worked perfectly.

We are of the opinion, as we were in the case of Stewart vs. Clay, that extravagant warranties were given and that the 'heater did not comply therewith.

The trial judge rejected plaintiff’s demand and rendered judgment in favor of defendant, in reconvention, for $55, the amount which she had paid on the (purchase price of the heater. We think this judgment was correct and, for the reasons given in the matter of Stewart vs. Clay, above referred to, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment appealed from be and it is affirmed, at the cost of appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 So. 160, 10 La. App. 754, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-v-machin-lactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack