Hivert v. Lacaze
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Appeal from the District Court of the First District, Buchanan, J. cited the case of Rouzel v. McFarland, 8 Mart. 704. The plaintiff cannot recover. The defect alleged to have existed, is one that must have been discovered by simple inspection, and is, consequently, not a redhibitory vice. Civ. Code, art. 2497. Briant v. Marsh, 19 La. 391. Moreover, no tender has been proved. Barrett v. Bullard, 19 La. 281.
1Opinion of the CourtSimon, J.
This is a redhibitory action. The petition states that, on the 8th of August, 1838, the plaintiff purchased at public sale a certain slave named Betsey. That the sale was made at the request of the defendant, through his brother and agent, subject to be ratified by the defendant, who was then absent, within four months from the date of the sale. That the slave was fully guarantied against the vices and maladies prescribed by law, and that the price paid was four hundred and seventy dollars. The plaintiff further alleges, that on the very day the slave was delivered *358to him, she showed the most…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Slatter v. HoltonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1841
3Cited by7 opinions
- Aetna Casualty & Surety Company v. Lasalle Pump & Supply Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986
- Schramm v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1936
- Beneficial Finance Co. v. BienemyLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1971
- Abels v. GloverSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1860
- Alan Randal Co. v. Quality Oil Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1958
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.