Case ID: la_7/html/0517-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Bullard, J.,\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ICAR vs. SUARES.
    Eastern Dist.
    
      January, 1835.
    APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP THE PIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT.
    The rehibitory action, for the recission of the sale and return of the price of a slave, will be sustained, for any vice or defect which renders the slave either absolutely useless, or its use so inconvenient and imperfect, that it must be supposed the buyer would not have purchased with a knowledge of the vices.
    This is a redhibitory action, to annul the sale of a slave, and recover back the price, with the fees and costs of sale, on the ground of the redhibitory vices of craziness and running away. The plaintiff alleges he purchased a slave named Kate, from the defendant, for which he paid five hundred dollars in cash ; that three or four days afterwards, it was discovered the slave was crazy and run away. He further alleges, that these vices and defects were known to the defendant; and that he has tendered the slave, demanded the annulment of the sale and return of the price, with the notary’s fees, which the defendant refuses to comply with, and for which he prays judgment.
    The defendant pleaded the general issue, and prays for general relief, and judgment in his behalf.
    Several witnesses were sworn and examined on both sides. The plaintiff showed that the slave was very stupid; that on being told to do one thing she would do another; that she was unsafe to be trusted about the house, on account of the, danger of setting fire to it; that she wandered off, and was finally put in the parish jail of an adjoining parish, as a runaway.
    The defendant’s testimony went to show, that the plaintiff took one or two slaves on trial, and finally concluded to buy Kate; that some days after she took the slave, she came to the store and informed witness she was very well pleased, and requested the defendant to pass an act of sale; that some days after the sale, plaintiff informed witness that Kate had absconded.
    The district judge, in rendering judgment in favor of the plaintiff, remarked, “ that with regard to the mental malady of the slave, the evidence and a personal inspection satisfied him, she was so far destitute of mental capacity, as to render her either absolutely useless, or the use so inconvenient, that it was to be presumed the buyer would not have purchased, had she known of the vice.” The defendant appealed.
    
      Cannon, for the plaintiff,
    urged the affirmance of the judgment.
    
      Roselius, for the defendant, made the following points.
    1. The evidence has not established, that the slave Kate is a runaway; nor is it even shown, that she ran away from the plaintiff after the sale.
    
      2. With regard to the alleged craziness of the slave, the proof is entirely insufficient; the utmost that can be inferred from the testimony, is that she was rather stupid. This is an apparent defect, if a redhibitory defect at all, against which the defendant did not warrant the slave.
    
      3. The district judge erred in taking into consideration his own impressions, derived from the appearance of the slave, from his personal inspection: he was not examined as a witness in the cause; and it is not even alleged that he possesses any particular skill on this subject.
    
      orj'/ctíon^for ^° turn of the price ^Ich'/en the slave useless, or ItsTmWmperfeet, that it must supposed the buyer would not ^know-: ° the
   Bullard, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff seeks to be relieved from a contract, by which she purchased from the defendant a recently imported slave, on account of two redhibitory vices, to wit: the habit of running away and madness. Judgment was rendered in his favor, and the defendant appealed.

The case turns altogether on matters of fact. We doubt whether the evidence establishes the habit of running away previous to the sale, but the opinion we have formed on the second ground, renders it unnecessary to give any positive opinion on the first.

It is contended that Kate was not crazy, but only stupid, and that stupidity is not madness, but on the contrary an apparent defect, against which the defendant did not warrant, Mere dullness of look is certainly apparent, but that degree of stupidity 'or want of intelligence, which results from a defective organization, is rather idiocy than stupidity. The code enumerates madness (folie) among the absolute vices of slaves, which give rise to the action of redhibition. Whether the subject of this action is idioticlc from nativity, or is laboring under one of the numberless derangements of an intellect originally sound, is a question which cannot be answered, . , „ , , , ‘ i , • i , without further knowledge of her history, than the record affords. Nor do we consider it material, inasmuch as the code has declared, that a sale may be avoided on account of any vice or defect, which renders the thing either absolutely useless, or its use so inconvenient and imperfect, that it must be supposed the buyer would not have purchased with a knowledge of the vice. La. Code, art. 2496.

We are satisfied from the evidence in the record, independently of the impression made on the mind of the judge, by personal inspection, that the slave in question was wholly, and perhaps worse than useless.

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