Millaudon v. Price
Supreme Court of Louisiana
A PPEAL from the Commercial Court of New Orleans, Waits, J, cited Story on Sales, 369. Good faith required that plaintiffs should have declared the time that the salt had been in store. C. C. 2496 to 2499, 2507, 2523. 8 Mart. 709. The vendor is bound to warrant the thing sold.
Read the full summary
A PPEAL from the Commercial Court of New Orleans, Waits, J, cited Story on Sales, 369. Good faith required that plaintiffs should have declared the time that the salt had been in store. C. C. 2496 to 2499, 2507, 2523. 8 Mart. 709. The vendor is bound to warrant the thing sold. C. C. 2449 to 2451. As to the natüre and effect of simple inspection, and how far it will exonerate the vendor from the effect of his representations, concealments &c., see C. C. 2496 to 2499, 2507, 2509, 2523, 2525, 2526,1891, § 3,4. Rouzel f. McFarland, 8 Mart. 704. Williams v. Millar, 9 La. 134. Sh&pardv. Kain, 5…
1Opinion of the Court
The judgment of the court was pronounced by
King, L*
The judgment appealed from in this case is affirmed, for the reasons assigned by the judge of the Commercial Court, with costs.
Slidell, J., did not sit in this case, having been of counsel.
2Cited by7 opinions
- William Whitman Co., Inc. v. SolomonLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1932
- Hossier Realty Co. v. Caddo Cotton Oil Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1914
- Aubry v. ToddLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1951
- Wrenn v. Lafayette Furniture Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1933
- Star Shoe Co. v. HendricksLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1949
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.