Tardif v. Baudoin
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL from the District Court of the Parish of Assumption, Oole, J. Now we contend that we have the right to explain the receipt of $1100, and to show that it included and annulled the preceding receipt of $833 33, and that we were not bound to allege error or fraud, being unaware of what might be produced against us. We are plaintiif in the cause.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the District Court of the Parish of Assumption, Oole, J. Now we contend that we have the right to explain the receipt of $1100, and to show that it included and annulled the preceding receipt of $833 33, and that we were not bound to allege error or fraud, being unaware of what might be produced against us. We are plaintiif in the cause. Replications are not allowed in our law; and therefore all the allegations in the answer are open to every objection of law and fact, as nonage, coverture, fraud, prescription and the like, in the same manner as if such exceptions had been…
1Opinion of the CourtVooriiies, J.
This is an action to recover the sum of $2505, as the price of a tract of land sold by the plaintiff to the defendant, Estival Baudoin, on the 16th of August, 1847, payable in three equal instalments, maturing in March, 1848, 1849 and 1850, with eight per cent, per annum interest from maturity until paid. The other defendant is sued as the surety of the purchaser.
The defence rests on the plea of payment by Baudoin, except as to the sum of $406, for which, it is averred, a legal tender has been made.
The only matter in dispute between the parties litigant in this case, relates to the sum of…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Dixie Mills Supply Co. v. Town of HomerLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1927