Skip to main content
· 11/3/1903

Chaffe v. Barataria Canning Co.

Citations

  • 113 La. 215
  • 36 So. 943
  • 1903 La. LEXIS 582

Syllabus

<p>APPEAL — REVIEW — CONFLICTING EVIDENCE-CONTRACT — RIGHTS OF PARTIES — CONSTRUCTION — AGENT—RATIFICATION OF ACTS.</p> <p>1. The issues in this case were issues of fact, which were upon conflicting testimony decided by the judge in favor of the defendant. Where the appellate court finds, as did the court below, the preponderance of testimony adverse to the plaintiff’s claims, and there is nothing in the record to break the force of the judge’s conclusions as to the weight of evidence, the upper court would not be warranted in altering or reversing the judgment.</p> <p>2. The rights and obligations of the parties to a contract are to be tested by the actual facts of the case as disclosed by the evidence. Errors in bookkeeping amount to nothing, when remedied by testimony aliunde.</p> <p>3. Though it was understood between the parties to the verbal contract which they made that the bulk of the molasses business of the concern was to be conducted by the plaintiff at his individual office, that matter did not enter into the contract as forming one of its terms or conditions. The plaintiff not being personally liable for any losses in the business, and his remuneration being 'a share in the net profits of the venture, defendant was under no legal obligation to forego the benefits which would accrue to it, by lessening expenses by changing the place for conducting the business to its own factory, through consideration for the plaintiff, in absence of a contract upon that subject. As defendant had the right to discontinue the business at will, the question as to whether plaintiff’s refusal to comply with an order to change his office would under different circumstances have justified the termination of the relations between the parties, is a matter of no moment.</p> <p>4. As between plaintiff and defendant, the former, as the latter’s manager, was bound not to make purchases on the latter’s behalf beyond a certain limit. This limitation was not made known to others. Plain

Judges: Nicholls

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.