Romano v. Seidel Furniture Mfg. Co.
Citations
- 114 La. 432
- 38 So. 409
- 1905 La. LEXIS 484
Syllabus
<p>NEGLIGENCE — EVIDENCE.</p> <p>1. Where plaintiff sued for damages for personal injuries to his son, 10 years old, alleged to have been occasioned by the fall of lumber carelessly and negligently piled in the street contrary to city ordinance, the burden of proof was on him to show that the injuries complained of were occasioned by the alleged causes; and in such a ease, where the evidence is confused and conflicting as to the cause of the accident, and there is evidence tending to show that the boy may have jumped or fallen from the pile, the judgment of the district court in favor of defendant will not be disturbed.</p> <p>2. Attention is called to State v. Williams, 35 South. 505, 111 La. 179, relative to disqualification of witnesses on ground of lack of understanding of nature of an oath. See Act No. 29, p. 39, of 1886; Civ. Code, art. 2281.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “[W]here the language of the contract is clear, extrinsic evidence may not be considered.”
- “[W]here the language of the contract is clear, extrinsic evidence may not be considered.”
- “Only when a policy’s language is ambiguous, may a court rely upon extrinsic or parol evidence to determine the intent of the parties; however, where the language of the contract is clear, extrinsic evidence may not be considered.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Land
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.