Vanderbilt Parts v. Schackai

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Vanderbilt Parts v. Schackai

142 So. 851

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 27, 1932

DocketNo. 14083.

StatusPublished

This text of 142 So. 851 (Vanderbilt Parts v. Schackai) 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

Vanderbilt Parts v. Schackai, 142 So. 851 (La. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

WESTERFIELD, J.

This is a suit, on an -open account, in which it is alleged that the defendant purchased $542.81 worth of merchandise and paid on account thereof $375.82, leaving a balance of $166.99, the amount sued for. Defendant answered, admitting the purchase of the merchandise, but alleged that it amounted only to $375.82, which had been paid, and claimed $6 by way of reconvention. On the day of the trial of the case below, defendant interposed an exception of no cause of action and objected to the introduction of any evidence in proof of plaintiff’s demand. The exception was based upon the manner in which the itemized account, which was attached to the petition, had been drawn. For example, only the date, the invoice number, and the amounts were given. This defendant’s counsel characterized as a series of numbers only, the effect of which, it was asserted, prevented the introduction of proof in support of the plaintiff’s demand. The objection was overruled and the trial proceeded, defendant offering no evidence and relying solely upon his exception of no cause of action.

Judgment was rendered in plaintiff’s favor, as prayed for, and defendant has appealed.

In our opinion the action of the trial court was correct. Defendant’s remedy was an exception of vagueness. Having proceeded to trial and offering no evidence whatever, there was nothing for the court to do but to award plaintiff judgment as prayed for. However vague the statement may have been, it was amply proven by the testimony administered.

For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

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, in which it is alleged that the defendant purchased $542.81 worth of merchandise and paid on account thereof $375.82, leaving a balance of $166.99, the amount sued for. Defendant answered, admitting the purchase of the merchandise, but alleged that it amounted only to $375.82, which had been paid, and claimed $6 by way of reconvention. On the day of the trial of the case below, defendant interposed an exception of no cause of action and objected to the introduction of any evidence in proof of plaintiff’s demand. The exception was based upon the manner in which the itemized account, which was attached to the petition, had been drawn. For example, only the date, the invoice number, and the amounts were given. This defendant’s counsel characterized as a series of numbers only, the effect of which, it was asserted, prevented the introduction of proof in support of the plaintiff’s demand. The objection was overruled and the trial proceeded, defendant offering no evidence and relying solely upon his exception of no cause of action.

Judgment was rendered in plaintiff’s favor, as prayed for, and defendant has appealed.

In our opinion the action of the trial court was correct. Defendant’s remedy was an exception of vagueness. Having proceeded to trial and offering no evidence whatever, there was nothing for the court to do but to award plaintiff judgment as prayed for. However vague the statement may have been, it was amply proven by the testimony administered.

For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 So. 851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vanderbilt-parts-v-schackai-lactapp-1932.