Toledano v. Klingender
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT. On the 2d January 1834, Toledano sold to F. Klingender fifty bales of cotton, weighing 23363 pounds, at ten and a half cents per pound, amounting to two thousand four hundred and fifty three dollars and eleven cents, on which one thousand five hundred dollars was paid, and the balance of nine hundred and fifty three dollars and eleven cents which the purchaser had advanced to one Rareshide, a broker who purchased the…
Read the full summary
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT. On the 2d January 1834, Toledano sold to F. Klingender fifty bales of cotton, weighing 23363 pounds, at ten and a half cents per pound, amounting to two thousand four hundred and fifty three dollars and eleven cents, on which one thousand five hundred dollars was paid, and the balance of nine hundred and fifty three dollars and eleven cents which the purchaser had advanced to one Rareshide, a broker who purchased the cotton, the latter failed to pay it over and absconded. The plaintiff, Toledano, called on the defendant, Klingender, for…
1Opinion of the CourtBullard, J.
This case presents the single question, whether the payment of the price of a lot of cotton to a broker, who effected the sale and purchase of it, be a good payment and binding on the plaintiff as vendor.
According to the Louisiana Code “the broker or intermediary is he who is employed to negocíate a matter between two parties and who for that reason is considered as the mandatory of both,” art. 2985. It is only in facilitating the transaction of business in relation to the sale and purchase of produce, that the broker is considered as the common agent of the parties: the channel of…
2Cited by2 opinions
- SOUTHWEST MOTOR LEAS., INC. v. Matthews Lumber Co. of Mansfield, Inc.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1976
- Hearin v. AlbinLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1971