Upper City Tire Co. v. Jones

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Upper City Tire Co. v. Jones

119 So. 468, 9 La. App. 316, 1928 La. App. LEXIS 617

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 15, 1928

DocketNo. 205

StatusPublished

This text of 119 So. 468 (Upper City Tire Co. v. Jones) 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

Upper City Tire Co. v. Jones, 119 So. 468, 9 La. App. 316, 1928 La. App. LEXIS 617 (La. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinions

MOUTON, J.

Plaintiff sues defendant for the price of auto tires, tubes, etc., amounting to $213.30, with legal interest from judicial demand, for which he recovered judgment. Defendant appeals. These automobile accessories were bought by defendant through one Kirby, salesman for plaintiff company.

The defendant alleges that all these tires and tubes were defective, rotten and worthless. He avers that he returned six Batavia tires and fifty Exton tubes to plaintiff on or about July 21st or 22nd, 1926, and» eight tires on August 28, 1926; that he delivered twenty-one tires to Kirby who took them in an automobile, promising to ship to defendant in lieu thereof seven Phelps tires and fourteen Exton tires, but that they never were replaced by plaintiff. He also evers that he shipped eight tires to the Crescent Tire Company of New Orleans. These shipments, he alleges, were done under the advice or instructions of Kirby.

Grundy, president of plaintiff company, says that the tires and tubes defendant claims to have returned August 28, 1926, were never received by his company; nor the twenty-one, defendant says were loaded in Kirby’s auto, and eight he claims to have shipped to the Crescent Tire Company of New Orleans. There is nothing to show that the twenty-one tires turned over to Kirby were ever returned to plaintiff, or that Kirby, who was a mere salesman of plaintiff, had any authority to make such an adjustment. The proof offered by defendant also fails to sustain his contention that on August 2'8th, he returned the eight tires above referred to.

Defendant contends he should recover $81.00 which plaintiff received by draft from him for six Batavia tires that were defective and worthless. These tires are not charged to defendant and he is not [317]*317entitled to any credit therefor.

LECHE, J., dissents, being of the opinion that the judgment of the District Court should be affirmed in whole.

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

MOUTON, J.

Plaintiff sues defendant for the price of auto tires, tubes, etc., amounting to $213.30, with legal interest from judicial demand, for which he recovered judgment. Defendant appeals. These automobile accessories were bought by defendant through one Kirby, salesman for plaintiff company.

The defendant alleges that all these tires and tubes were defective, rotten and worthless. He avers that he returned six Batavia tires and fifty Exton tubes to plaintiff on or about July 21st or 22nd, 1926, and» eight tires on August 28, 1926; that he delivered twenty-one tires to Kirby who took them in an automobile, promising to ship to defendant in lieu thereof seven Phelps tires and fourteen Exton tires, but that they never were replaced by plaintiff. He also evers that he shipped eight tires to the Crescent Tire Company of New Orleans. These shipments, he alleges, were done under the advice or instructions of Kirby.

Grundy, president of plaintiff company, says that the tires and tubes defendant claims to have returned August 28, 1926, were never received by his company; nor the twenty-one, defendant says were loaded in Kirby’s auto, and eight he claims to have shipped to the Crescent Tire Company of New Orleans. There is nothing to show that the twenty-one tires turned over to Kirby were ever returned to plaintiff, or that Kirby, who was a mere salesman of plaintiff, had any authority to make such an adjustment. The proof offered by defendant also fails to sustain his contention that on August 2'8th, he returned the eight tires above referred to.

Defendant contends he should recover $81.00 which plaintiff received by draft from him for six Batavia tires that were defective and worthless. These tires are not charged to defendant and he is not [317]*317entitled to any credit therefor.

LECHE, J., dissents, being of the opinion that the judgment of the District Court should be affirmed in whole.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 So. 468, 9 La. App. 316, 1928 La. App. LEXIS 617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/upper-city-tire-co-v-jones-lactapp-1928.