Silk v. Crosset Shoe Shop
Louisiana Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
JONES, J.
Plaintiff alleges that he purchased for eight dollars on September 5, 1925, a pair of low tan shoes from the defendant, who is engaged in the business of selling tihoes at retail, that the right shoe of said pair was defective, carelessly and improperly made, in that the tongue of said shoe was placed too low in said shoe, and was also rough and thick, causing pressure on plaintiff’s foot, that after defendant’s [talesman had measured plaintiff’s foot, plaintiff selected a pair of shoes which defendant’s salesman tried on plaintiff’s feet, and assured, warranted and…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, Ltd.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1911
- George v. Shreveport Cotton Oil Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1905
- Flynn v. Bedell Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1922
- Livingston v. ScullySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1886
- Defee v. CovingtonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1885
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.