Case ID: la_13/html/0268-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Rost, J„\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BAPTISTE, F. W. C., VS. SOULIE, F. W. C.
    APPEAL FROM THE PARISH COURT, FOR THE PARISH AND CITY OF NEW-ORLEANS.
    The jury are the best judges of the facts submitted to them ; and unless on examination of the evidence shows error, to induce a reversal, the judgment will not be disturbed.
    The reoord and judgment of a suit between other persons and the plaintiff, are not admissible in evidence, except to show that such judgment was rendered; but the parole evidence, on which it was obtained, cannot, because it forms part of the record, be received as proof in another suit.
    This is a redhibitory action, in which the plaintiff seeks to rescind the sale of two slaves made to her by the defendant, and to have her note for the price, amounting to nine hundred dollars returned, and for damages.
    She alleges, the slaves were afflicted with a pulmonary disease, at the time of sale, which was known to the seller, but which she fraudulently concealed, and of which the slaves died shortly after their delivery, following the sale.
    The plaintiff further alleged, she had been sued on the note in question, by Miramond, O’Duhigg & Co., to whom the defendant had transferred it. She prays for judgment,, restoring to her the note she gave as the price of said slaves, together with all the interest and cost recovered from her, in the suit of Miramond, O’Duhigg & Co., and for two hundred dollars in damages.
    The defendant pleaded a general denial to ■ the material allegations in the petition.
    On the trial, many witnesses were examined; and the record of the suit of Miramond, O’Duhigg & Co., against the plaintiff in this case, on her note given for the price of the slaves in question, was by her counsel offered in evidence, to which the defendant’s counsel made opposition, on the ground that the defendant was no party to that suit. The opposition was sustained, and the plaintiff took her bill of exceptions.
    The cause was submitted to a jury, on the evidence adduced by the parties, who returned‘a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed from the judgment rendered thereon.'
    
      jD. & J. Seghers, for the plaintiff.
    
      The jurj' are ofThe^aeís'sub-Emd”6 unlesseian examination of shows error to saf the judgment will not be dis-
    The record nndsuitdSbetween other lahviff are not admissi-except tfr: that such judgment was rendered; but the on which'iteras obtained,cannot, because it forms part of the reed a’s proof Yn another suit.
    
      Richot, contra.
    
   Rost, J„

delivered tbe opinion of the court.

This is a redhibitory action, for the rescission of a sale of a mulatto woman and her child, on the ground that before and at the time of the sale, the said slaves were, to the knowledge of the defendant, affected with a pulmonary disease, of which they both died.

The defendant admits the sale, pleads the general issue, . and the prescription of one year.

This cause was tried by a jury, who gave their verdict in favor of the defendant, and the motion for a new trial, made by t^e having been overruled, she appealed,

The questions involved in the case are questions of fact, which the jury had better opportunities to decide than we can Possess > and after a careful examination of the evidence submitted to them, we see nothing which could induce us to reverse the judgment.

The plaintiff took a bill of exceptions to the refusal of the court t0 admit in evidence the record of a suit, by Miramond, O’Duhigg & Co., against Marcelette Baptiste and Widow Ferdinand.

The proceedings had no reference to this suit, and the only .1 . ■ . .. object in attempting to introduce them, was to introduce with them the testimony of Doctor Fortin, taken in that C0U].j; ancj on f¡[e jn the record. The attempt was clearly 3 r J illegal. A record may be introduced in evidence, to show that a judgment was rendered, but the parole evidence upon which wag 0htained cannot, because it forms part of the record, be received as proof in another suit. If in any particular case such evidence is admissible, it is so per se on other grounds, and independently of the record to which it is attached. We think the judge did not err."

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the Parish Court be affirmed, with costs.