Case ID: mart-os_2/html/0329-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FLOTTE vs. AUBERT, AUBERT vs. MARTINEAU, IN WARRANTY.
    Defendant may cite, and have judgment against his vendor on the warranty.
    THIs suit was brought, in order to recover a slave, in the possession of the defendant Aubert, who had been purciiased by Aubert of Mar-tiueau, which latter had been cited to defend the title to the property.
    
      Ellery, for Aubert.
    Though no clause of war. ranty is inserted in the bill of sale we have produced, conveying this slave from Martineau to Aubert, yet, by the civil, as well as the common law, an implied warranty is annexed to every sale, in respect to the title of the vendor; and if the title prove insufficient, it requires no express warranty to entitle the vendee to recover the amount of the price and damages. Thc digest of the Civil Code, in case of eviction, contains the same principles and provisions. Civil Code, 354, arts. 49, 53. If, therefore, we are evicted of this property, we must look for satisfaction to our vendor; and it has been the practice of our courts, conformably to the principles of the civil law, to suffer all the parties interested to be admitted into one action, and with the principal suit, to decide also those instituted in warranty; by which means suits are led-sened, expence saved, and justice speedily administered. In this case, we have regularly vouched in our vendor to defend his title; and, in case judgment in the principal suit should be rendered against us, evicting us of this property, we pray that judgment also, at the same time, be entered against him, for the restitution of the price we have paid, as well as costs we have incurred, either in the suit in warranty or principal suit. Civil Code, 354, art. 54.
    
      Mazureau, for plaintiff.
    Hennen, for defendant in warrantly.
   Of this opinion was the Court, who, upon deciding the principal cause against the defendant, Aubert, directed judgment to be entered against defendant in warranty, in favor of Aubert, for the amount of the price specified in the bill of sale, and all costs incurred in the suit in warranty, as well in the principal suit.