Baucum v. Garrett Mercantile Company
Baucum v. Garrett Mercantile Company, 178 So. 261 (La. 1937).
The holding in the court’s own words
The defenses and legal principles involved in this case are similar to those involved in the case of Baucum & Kimball v. Garrett Mercantile Company et al., supra, and therefore, for the reasons this day assigned in that case, we conclude that the defendants are liable to the plaintiff for the amount advanced to them by the plaintiff in excess of the sale price of the cotton, plus the amount of “margin” put up by the defendants.
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.
Cited by
- Dauzat v. Great American Indemnity Co. 130 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
- Lyons v. Jahncke Service, Inc. 125 So. 2d 619 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
- Morton v. American Employers Insurance Co. 104 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1958
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Baucum & Kimball v. Garrett Mercantile Co. 178 So. 256
Opinion text
FOURNET, Justice. This suit was consolidated, for the purpose of trial in the district court, with the case of Baucum & Kimball v. Garrett Mercantile Company et al., 178 So. 256 , this day decided by us, and is an action by W. P. Baucum to recover from the defendants, who sold him 84 bales of cotton “on call,” an alleged balance due of $454.49. The defenses and legal principles involved in this case are similar to those involved in the case of Baucum & Kimball v. Garrett Mercantile Company et al., supra, and therefore, for the reasons this day assigned in that case, we conclude that the defendants are liable to the plaintiff for the amount advanced to them by the plaintiff in excess of the sale price of the cotton, plus the amount of “margin” put up by the defendants. For the reasons assigned, the judgments of the lower court and the Court of Appeal are reversed, and it is now ordered, adjudged, and decreed that there be judgment in favor of plaintiff, W. P. Baucum, and against defendants Garrett Mercantile Company, J. B. Garrett, J. H. Garrett, and M. C. Baker, in solido, for the sum of $454.49, with 5 per centum interest thereon from judicial demand, and all costs.