Carr v. Miller-Morris Canal, Irrigation & Land Co.

Citations

• 105 La. 239

Syllabus

<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>1. Plaintiff alleged a verbal contract with defendant to supply him water to irrigate his rice crop. Defendant, for answer, pleaded the general issue, denied each and every allegation of the petition and averred that plaintiff set out to make and did make a “providence crop” on his lands, and refused to take water from defendant company. Helé: This answer does not set up a special defense which is to be considered as admitting the verbal contract, and then seeking to avoid same by averments of plaintiff’s refusal to take water under the contract.</p> <p>2. The answer is not a plea of confession and avoidance. On the contrary, it is regarded as a special denial of any contract to supply water, and the burden to prove it was on plaintiff.</p> <p>On Application fob Reheaeing.</p> <p>1. In an action for damages arising from the lack of water to raise a crop of rice, the failure of defendant to furnish water to irrigate plaintiff’s crop is not sustained by the testimony.</p> <p>2. The year 1898 was the first year that the defendant sought to irrigate rice crops and it was also plaintiff’s first attempt to cultivate rice. There was a ' want of thorough preparation on the part of each. Plaintiff failed to avail himself of the defendant’s offer to furnish water to irrigate and did not, in any respect, seek to minimize the damages.</p> <p>3. An alleged verbal agreement was embodied in a subsequent written contract without reserving any of the rights now claimed, by plaintiff. The terms and conditions of the written contract have not been complied with by the plaintiff.</p> <p>4. The special plea, as interpreted by the majority of the court, affords no ground upon which the court can hold the defendant liable.</p>