Pailet v. Young

• Decision Date: 01 February 1926
• Docket Number: 10,325
• Citation: 3 La.App. 265
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
• Parties: MAURICE PAILET v. PETER YOUNG, Appellant

3 La.App. 265

MAURICE PAILET v. PETER YOUNG, Appellant

No. 10,325

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Orleans

February 1, 1926

Appeal from First City Court of New Orleans, Section "A". Hon. W. Alexander Bahns, Judge.

This is a suit brought by plaintiff, the assignee, for the balance of the purchase price of a diamond ring.

There was judgment for plaintiff and defendant appealed.

Judgment affirmed.

Herman Barnett, of New Orleans, attorney for plaintiff, appellee.

S. F Gautier, H. Rauvich, of New Orleans, attorneys for defendant appellant.

OPINION

WESTERFIFELD, J.

Plaintiff, alleging that he is the assignee of one P. M. Stein, brings this suit for $ 262.00, which he says is due by defendant as a balance on the purchase price of a certain diamond ring alleged to have been sold defendant by the said Stein.

Defendant prayed for oyer of the assignment, and in this court insists that though oyer was ordered by the trial judge, plaintiff has not complied with the order. It is sufficient to say in this connection that the assignment was admittedly not in writing, consequently cannot be exhibited. Moreover, the evidence clearly shows a recognition of the assignment on the part of defendant.

The answer is in effect a general denial.

Defendant is shown to have made thirty-four payments to plaintiff on the diamond ring, one of two dollars and thirty-three of one dollar each. He admits making some payments but claims to have acted for a friend of his by the name of Segretto, whom defendant declares was the purchaser of the ring and alone responsible for the payment of the purchase price.

Segretto did not testify and the case must be determined upon the contradictory evidence of plaintiff and defendant, for neither of the other two witnesses whose evidence is in the record is of any assistance. Plaintiff's testimony is to the effect that he bought out the jewelry business formerly conducted by P. M. Stein and among the open accounts was this claim against defendant appearing in the name of defendant that he advised defendant of his purchase and made the collection of $ 35.00 on account in thirty-four payments and could make no further collection on the account. Defendant's testimony is not impressive. He denies buying the ring or anything else from Stein. He admits having made payments to plaintiff but didn't know how many payments nor how much money he paid; kept no account and did not intend to seek reimbursement from Segretto, for whose account he paid the money and on whose suggestion he claims to have stopped the payments "because Segretto was a particular friend of mine". When asked how many payments he made to plaintiff, he answered: "I never kept account, three or four payments", though he would not deny that he had made thirty-four payments when...