Bertrand v. Arcueil
Supreme Court of Louisiana
the Parish Court of New Orleans, Maurian, J. for a rehearing. It is admitted as a general principle that, where one of several things sold together is tainted with a redhibitory defect, the sale should be rescinded for the whole, if it appear that the vendee would not have bought the others without it. llut, in Louisiana, that principle has been narrowed down by ait. 2518 of the Civil Code, to the only case where the things sold together are matched (appareillés). It is true…
Read the full summary
the Parish Court of New Orleans, Maurian, J. for a rehearing. It is admitted as a general principle that, where one of several things sold together is tainted with a redhibitory defect, the sale should be rescinded for the whole, if it appear that the vendee would not have bought the others without it. llut, in Louisiana, that principle has been narrowed down by ait. 2518 of the Civil Code, to the only case where the things sold together are matched (appareillés). It is true that the examples mentioned in that article are cited by way of illustration, and do, by no means, prevent its being…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion originally formed by the court in this case was pronounced by
Seidell, J.
In May, 1847, the plaintiff became the purchaser at auction of three slaves, for a total price of $1100, payable at one year. They were described in the advertisement as Harry, a field hand, Hannah, his wife, and their child, Huldah. The advertisement stated—“ tous ces esclaves sont garanties des vices et maladies prévus par la loi, et sont recommandé sous tous les rapports.”
The mother and child became seriously ill two or three days after their delivery to the purchaser, and died within three weeks after the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Canfield v. VaughanSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1820
3Cited by1 opinion
- Alford v. TiblierLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1884