Williams v. Shadow
Louisiana Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
GLADNEY, Judge.
The defendant has appealed from a judgment, the effect of which is to sustain plaintiff’s redhibitory action relating to a forage harvester machine and to require the return of the cash payment made by plaintiff to defendant on its purchase price. The principal defense urged upon appeal is that the judgment of the trial court is in error in *49finding redhibitory vices in the machine sold.
On August 3, 1953, Herbert L. Williams purchased from defendant a new Holland Forage Harvester for $1,834 on which amount Williams paid $409 in cash. At the time of the sale it was represented to…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Crawford v. Abbott Automobile Co., Ltd.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1924
- J. B. Beaird Co. v. Burris Bros.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1949
- Henderson v. Leona Rice Milling Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1926
- Kuhlmann v. PurperaLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1947
- E. Levy Co. v. PierceLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1949
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.