Surplus Lumber Co. v. Ulmer

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Surplus Lumber Co. v. Ulmer

120 So. 402, 10 La. App. 46, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 419

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 11, 1929

DocketNo. 10,891

StatusPublished

This text of 120 So. 402 (Surplus Lumber Co. v. Ulmer) 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

Surplus Lumber Co. v. Ulmer, 120 So. 402, 10 La. App. 46, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 419 (La. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

WESTERFIELD, J.

This is a suit on an open account for $574.62, for lumber sold and delivered to the defendant. Defendant admits the delivery of the lumber, but claims that a proper accounting would show a balance in his favor. He reconvenes and' asks for judgment in such amount as will appear to be due him as the result of the accounting. There was judgment for plaintiff as prayed for and defendant’s reconventional demand dismissed, as in case of non-suit. On the trial of the case defendant attacked the prices chafged him for the lumber as incorrect, but failed [47]*47to state what the proper charge should have been. In fact, his evidence was exceedingly vague and unsatisfactory, and wholly insufficient to maintain his "defense.

The judgment appealed from is correct and it is, therefore, 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 $574.62, for lumber sold and delivered to the defendant. Defendant admits the delivery of the lumber, but claims that a proper accounting would show a balance in his favor. He reconvenes and' asks for judgment in such amount as will appear to be due him as the result of the accounting. There was judgment for plaintiff as prayed for and defendant’s reconventional demand dismissed, as in case of non-suit. On the trial of the case defendant attacked the prices chafged him for the lumber as incorrect, but failed [47]*47to state what the proper charge should have been. In fact, his evidence was exceedingly vague and unsatisfactory, and wholly insufficient to maintain his "defense.

The judgment appealed from is correct and it is, therefore, affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 So. 402, 10 La. App. 46, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/surplus-lumber-co-v-ulmer-lactapp-1929.