Legal Opinion

Acorn Refining Co. v. Ringgold

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided November 9, 1940No. 2159PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DORE, Judge. .

This is a suit for $185.45 far paint, stain, varnish, sizing, etc., sold by - plaintiff to defendant, less .a credit.,of $65.91 for materials returned, leaving a balance due of $119.54. . ,.The defense’is that the paint and other .materials sold were defective and unfit for the purposes for which they were purchased. Defendant, assuming the position of plaintiff in reconvention, averred that he had expended the sum of: $85 for labor in applying plaintiff’s defective product,, and that he would be required to expend $150 more to remove the same,- thus damaging him to the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. American Paint Works v. Metairie Ridge Nursery Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1925
  2. Davis Co. v. CassoLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1927
  3. S. P. Weaver Lumber & Supply Co. v. Paramount Wood Products Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1933

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Alan Randal Co. v. Quality Oil Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1958
  2. A. C. Horn Co. v. ConderLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1951

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API