Huntington v. Lowe
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Appeal from the Fourth District Court of New Orleans, Slrawhridge, J. It is clear that the plaintiff has property limited his action t'o the -redhibition of that portion of the pork which was unsound, and that he was eve.n compelled to affirm the contract as to the other portion which was not effected with the redhibitory defect.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Fourth District Court of New Orleans, Slrawhridge, J. It is clear that the plaintiff has property limited his action t'o the -redhibition of that portion of the pork which was unsound, and that he was eve.n compelled to affirm the contract as to the other portion which was not effected with the redhibitory defect. For in the sale of several things together, which being independent of each other do not form a whole, and do not derive any increase of value from their union, the redhibitory action will lie only for the things found defective, and the contract must be carried into…
1Opinion of the Court
The judgment of the court was pronounced, by
Seidell, J.
This case'presents a reelamation-by plaintiff, arising out of'a purchase of pork made by him from the'defendants. Of the quantity purchased, about one-half proved to be unsound.- The plaintiff claimed the difference in value exhibited by an auction sale of the'unsound, made about three weeks after the sale, as compared with the alleged market value of a sound article ; and also- damages for the charges and expenses incurred by its shipment to his correspondent in Mobile;- who sold w small part of the lot there, and upon discovering the…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Pere v. DalgarnLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1926
- Aubry v. ToddLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1951
- Bates v. Lilly Brokerage Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1935
- Clevenger v. MayerLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1926
- Robertson v. CoffeeLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1951