Williams v. Simon

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Williams v. Simon

165 So. 328

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJanuary 27, 1936

DocketNo. 16215.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 165 So. 328 (Williams v. Simon) 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

Williams v. Simon, 165 So. 328 (La. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

This is a suit for rent in which the plaintiffs obtained judgment for $138.50. The only issue presented by this appeal is an alleged credit of $25, for defendant concedes an indebtedness of $113.50.

The evidence is confusing and conflicting. The rent due by defendant was $25 per month, which was often paid in installments. No receipts were produced for any of the payments, and no account appears to have been kept by either party except a memorandum book by the witness Albert Williams, who collected the rent for plaintiff. Defendant complains of the use of this book, which was not introduced in evidence. We see no objection to his referring to the entries therein, which, according to the testimony, were made contemporaneous with the collections, as a means of refreshing his memory. Wig-more on Evidence (2d Ed.) vol. 11, §§ 758 et seq. and 800; Kendall v. Bean, 12 Rob. 407; Flower v. Downs, 6 La.Ann. 538. The trial court evidently believed this witness and rendered judgment accordingly. We cannot see any reason to disturb that judgment.

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, Judge.

This is a suit for rent in which the plaintiffs obtained judgment for $138.50. The only issue presented by this appeal is an alleged credit of $25, for defendant concedes an indebtedness of $113.50.

The evidence is confusing and conflicting. The rent due by defendant was $25 per month, which was often paid in installments. No receipts were produced for any of the payments, and no account appears to have been kept by either party except a memorandum book by the witness Albert Williams, who collected the rent for plaintiff. Defendant complains of the use of this book, which was not introduced in evidence. We see no objection to his referring to the entries therein, which, according to the testimony, were made contemporaneous with the collections, as a means of refreshing his memory. Wig-more on Evidence (2d Ed.) vol. 11, §§ 758 et seq. and 800; Kendall v. Bean, 12 Rob. 407; Flower v. Downs, 6 La.Ann. 538. The trial court evidently believed this witness and rendered judgment accordingly. We cannot see any reason to disturb that judgment.

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

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 So. 328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-simon-lactapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack