Rousselot v. Kirwin

Citations

• 8 La. Ann. 300

Syllabus

<p>In a building contract, in which it was provided that the contractor should be paid thirty thousand dollars, at the rate of twenty-five hundred dollars per month, on the certificate of the architect stating that the work done warranted the payment—it is incompetent for the sub-contractor who claims from the owner, under the Act of 1844, on the ground that the payments have been anticipated—to go behind the architect’s certificate to show that it did not state the truth,</p> <p>The Act of 1844, in its terms and spirit, protects the sub-. ontractor,or workman, against all payments in anticipation made by the proprietor to the undertaker of a building, subsequent to the deWoery of am, attested account.</p>