Lewis v. Peets
Supreme Court of Louisiana
PPEAL'from the District Ceurt of Claiborne, Jones, J. The general rule is that parole evidence cannot be admitted against or beyond what is contained in the written act, nor on what may have been said before or at the time of making it, or since: C. C. 2256. The Article C. C. 2498, which says that the buyer cannot institute the redhibitory action on account of the latent defects which the seller has disclosed to him before or at the time of the sale, and that “ testimonial…
Read the full summary
PPEAL'from the District Ceurt of Claiborne, Jones, J. The general rule is that parole evidence cannot be admitted against or beyond what is contained in the written act, nor on what may have been said before or at the time of making it, or since: C. C. 2256. The Article C. C. 2498, which says that the buyer cannot institute the redhibitory action on account of the latent defects which the seller has disclosed to him before or at the time of the sale, and that “ testimonial proof of this declaration may bo received,” is, as the court say in the case of Gooiloe v. Hart, 2 L. 449, “an exception…
1Opinion of the Court
Buciianah, J. (Spofford, J., having been of counsel, recused himself.)
The appellee, who had a verdict of a jury and judgment in his favor in the court below, upon the merits, contends in this court that the conclusions of the petition are consonant neither with the redhibitory action, nor with that quantiminoris.
The petition sets forth a purchase of a slave for the price of seven hundred and thirty-seven dollars and fifty cents, fully warranted against redhibitory vices and maladies; that said slave proved to be a confirmed runaway, and died while a runaway; that by reason of such death, it…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Lloyd v. Pan Air Corp.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1962