Chapman v. Matthews
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL from the Eourth District Court of New Orleans, — Upon the application for a new trial it was insisted, in argument only, that, as no tender had been alleged and proved, the plaintiff could not recover. Plaintiff insists that this case comes -within the exceptions to the rule requiring tender prior to suit, for a rescission. The negro was dead at. the time of the institution of tha suit. “Lex neminem coget ad vana.”
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Eourth District Court of New Orleans, — Upon the application for a new trial it was insisted, in argument only, that, as no tender had been alleged and proved, the plaintiff could not recover. Plaintiff insists that this case comes -within the exceptions to the rule requiring tender prior to suit, for a rescission. The negro was dead at. the time of the institution of tha suit. “Lex neminem coget ad vana.” The case in 14 A. 401, Lewis v. Morgan, does not conflict with this. The only question in dispute was whether defendant had an agent, at time of institution of suit, to whom…
1Opinion of the CourtLjsmsv, J.
This is a redhibitory action, instituted by the plaintiff to rescind the sale of a slave named Coleman, fully warranted in the act of sale, and to recover back the price paid for him.
The answer is a general denial.
The verdict of the jury who tried the case, and the judgment of the Court, were in favor of the plaintiff; and the defendant has appealed.
No tender of the slave to the seller was ever made ; and this is urged by the defendant as fatal to the plaintiff’s right to prosecute his present -action.
The sale was made on the 19th June, 1860, and the slave died on the 8th October next…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Showers v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
3Cited by1 opinion
- Alan Randal Co. v. Quality Oil Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1958