Andrews v. Hensler
Supreme Court of the United States
Error to the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. In March, 1859, the plaintiff purchased four slaves of the defendant at New Orleans, giving a draft payable at a future day for the payment.
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. In March, 1859, the plaintiff purchased four slaves of the defendant at New Orleans, giving a draft payable at a future day for the payment. The slaves proving, as was now alleged by the purchaser, to. have been afflicted with various incurable diseases, &c., he brought suit for a rescission of the sale, the restitution of the price, and for damages; a sort of suit called, in the language of the code of Louisiana, a redhibitory action; Redhibition, by the code,* being defined to be “ the avoidance, of a sale on account of some…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Field
Treating the amended answer as an answer in addition to the general denial, we do not perceive any error in the refusal of the court below to instruct the jury, as requested, with respect to its effect. The rule which prevails in Louisiana on the subject of general and special pleas, as declared in the decisions of her courts, is that they may, be presented together, if consistent with each other. Inconsistent or contradictory pleas alone are forbidden. *
The amended answer amounts only to the averment of a fact which, if established, would tend to show that the warranty alleged in the…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Kauffman v. RaederCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1901
- Sim v. EdenbornSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- City of St. Charles v. StookeyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1907
- Springfield Milling Co. v. Barnard & Leas Manuf'g Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1897
- German Savings Inst. v. De La Vergne Refrigerating Mach. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1895
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.