Hunter Canal Co. v. Robertson's Heirs

Citations

• 113 La. 833
• 37 So. 771
• 1904 La. LEXIS 711

Syllabus

<p>CONTRACT — PERFORMANCE—SET-OEJ? — SEQUESTRATION — COSTS—RECON VENTIONAL DEMAND.</p> <p>1. Where there has been an imperfect performance of a contract for the irrigation of a rice crop, and the parties have elected to let the contract go on to the end of the irrigation season, and the crop has suffered from the failure to furnish water in time and in sufficient’ quantity, the water rent stipulated in the contract will be due up to the full amount thereof, if the crop has been benefited that much; but the debt will be offset by any loss that may have resulted from the dereliction of the contractor.</p> <p>2. In such cases only the excess of the rent can serve as a basis for sequestration.</p> <p>3. Where there is a reconventional demand, and both parties are cast, each must pay the costs occasioned by the demand of the other; and, where the testimony has borne on both demands, the costs thereof will be divided.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>