Jim Owens Co. v. Uddo
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., August 20, 1976 336 So. 2d 979; La. Ct. App. 5th Cir., March 14, 1962 140 So. 2d 429; La., May 15, 1875 27 La. 465
Jim Owens Co. v. Uddo, 280 So. 2d 379 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973).
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Ebert v. Macaluso 248 So. 2d 355
Opinion text
GULOTTA, Judge. This is a suit for the balance allegedly due, i. e., the sum of $150.00, for the installation of carpet in the premises owned by defendant. From a judgment of dismissal plaintiff appeals. The facts are that plaintiff, a carpet contractor entered into a written agreement with defendant for the installation of carpet at a charge of $15.00 per hour. After completion of the work, plaintiff billed defendant the sum of $285.00. Defendant objected to the evcessiveness of the charge and sent plaintiff a check in the amount of $185.00. 1 Plaintiff submitted a corrected invoice on August 30, 1971 in the sum of $335.00 less credit for the $185.00 payment on the account. The balance due, as claimed by plaintiff, was never paid. Plaintiff filed a lien and privilege on defendant’s home. This suit followed. There is no dispute on the installation of the carpet or that the contract price for installation is $15.00 per hour. The only question before us is the factual issue of how many hours plaintiff's employees work on the job. The plaintiff argues that although he was not on the job, his daily journal shows that his employees worked a total of 22 hours. 2 Neither employee who worked on the job testified. The defendant, on the other hand, stated that he was present during the time the carpet was being installed, and the plaintiff's employees were only on the job for a total of twelve hours. The trial judge heard the testimony and accepted the testimony of defendant in determining that twelve hours were spent in installing the carpet. This case involves a question of credibility of witnesses. The trial judge resolved this question in defendant’s favor. 3 We find no error. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. Costs are to be paid by plaintiff-appellant. Affirmed. . Twelve hours work at $15.00 an hour totals $180.00, plus $5.00 delivery charge, totaling $185.00. .July 26, 1971 — supervisor and helper 4 hours July 27, 1971 — supervisor and helper 8 hours August 7, 1971 — supervisor 8 hours August 11, 1971 — supervisor 2 hours TOTAL 22 hours .Ebert v. Macaluso, 248 So.2d 355 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1971).