Leson Chevrolet Co. v. Barbier
| Decision Date | 08 March 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 1722,1722 |
| Citation | 173 So.2d 50 |
| Parties | LESON CHEVROLET COMPANY, Inc. v. Percy J. BARBIER. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Hattier, Schroeder & Kuntz, John B. Hattier, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.
George T. Oubre, Norco, for defendant-appellee.
Before REGAN, SAMUEL, and HALL, JJ.
Plaintiff, as the holder for value of a promissory note and chattel mortgage executed by the defendant, originally instituted this suit thereon as an executory proceeding. It was converted by the trial court (there is some question as to the propriety of the conversion but neither litigant made or makes any objection thereto) into an ordinary proceeding and thereafter defendant answered, pleading want or failure of consideration as a result of a redhibitory vice, and reconvened for damages. There was judgment in the trial court dismissing both the main and reconventional demands and plaintiff has appealed therefrom.
The record reveals the following essential facts: During January of 1962 plaintiff, an automotive dealer, sold a used 1958 Chevrolet automobile to the defendant. As part of the purchase price defendant gave plaintiff his promissory note, payable in monthly installments, in the total amount of $947.52 and a chattel mortgage on the car. At the time this suit was filed the note was past due and exigible and defendant had made no payments thereon either in principal or interest. Approximately two weeks after receiving delivery of the car defendant discovered it had a cracked engine block and reported the same to plaintiff's employees. Discussions relative to repairing the car, which plaintiff offered to do, produced no result and plaintiff filed this suit on July 2, 1962. The case was tried on the merits on January 31 and February 3 of 1964. For a period of between five and six months from the date of discovery of the defect by defendant to the date of the filing of this suit, and for an additional period of approximately eighteen months after filing of suit to the date of trial, the car was used almost daily by defendant and his wife, both of whom testified that there was a considerable leakage of water, the radiator had to be refilled frequently and the trips taken necessarily were short ones. However, their testimony, particularly that of the wife, contains admissions that they had made at least five trips in the car to Crowley, Louisiana, a distance each way of approximately 160 miles. Defendant had some minor work done on the car (the bill therefor is approximately $40) which he claims was necessitated by its condition, other than the defective block, before the sale and more extensive repairs were made on one occasion as the result of an accident, but the defective block has never been repaired nor did defendant have the cost thereof estimated. The record contains no competent evidence as to that cost.
There is some question about the sufficiency of proof, the burden of which was on the defendant under LSA-Civil Code, Article 2530, of the fact that the engine block was cracked before the sale was made; the point is vigorously contested and from our examination of the record we are of the opinion that plaintiff did not know of the defect at the time it made the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
PPG Industries, Inc. v. Industrial Laminates Corp.
...Sales, Inc., 316 So.2d 795 (La.App.1975). The following are examples of redhibitory vices: a cracked engine block, Leson Chevrolet Co. v. Barbier, 173 So.2d 50 (La.App.1962) (1967); termite damage, Pursell v. Kelly, 139 So.2d 12 (La.App.1962), aff'd 244 La. 323, 152 So.2d 36 (1963); an inad......
-
Breaux v. Winnebago Industries, Inc.
...641 (La.App.2nd Cir. 1959), Abraham v. Dalworth Machinery Company, 167 So.2d 185 (La . App.1st Cir. 1964), Leson Chevrolet Company v. Barbier, 173 So.2d 50 (La.App.4th Cir. 1965). In considering use prior to tender sufficient to constitute a waiver, the jurisprudence is clear that where the......
-
Prince v. Paretti Pontiac Co.
...relief in quanti minoris provided the burden of proof required in such cases is satisfied. This court in Leson Chevrolet Company v. Barbier, 173 So.2d 50, 52 (La.App.4th Cir. 1965) said: '* * * under our settled jurisprudence a buyer's continued use of a purchased article after he discovers......
-
Johnson v. H. W. Parson Motors, Inc.
... ... The evidence shows that plaintiff purchased the 1965 Chevrolet Super Sport automobile on April 23, 1968. The first notable trouble plaintiff had with the car ... See Coco v. Mack Motor Truck Corporation, 235 La. 1095, 106 So.2d 691 (1958); Leson Chevrolet Company v. Barbier, 173 So.2d 50 (La.App.4th Cir. 1965). The evidence shows that ... ...