Case ID: la-ann_16/html/0017-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Voobhees, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

V. Parlange & Co. v. H. Parlange & Co. — Mrs. D. Debat, Warrantor.
    In redhibitory actions, the conjectural opinions of physicians without anyjposi mortem examination, are not of themselves sufficient evidence to establish the origin of the disease of which the slave died.
    Appeal from the Sixth District Court of New Orleans, J.
    
      W- J>. Koonts and A. P. Avegno, for plaintiffs and appellants. IP IT. TIuni & Denigre, for warrantor. L. Gasteva, for defendants.
   Voobhees, J.

Tlie ground upon which tlie plaintiffs base tlieir action in redhibition, is that, at the date of the sale, the slave was afflicted with tubercular consumption.

The, only evidence upon this subject, is the conjectural opinion of physicians, two of whom had given medical attention to the slave during his illness. There was no post mortem examination.

On tlie other hand it appears that the slayo previously to, and at the date of tlie sale, enjoyed, to all appearances, remarkably good health. Nor does it appeitr at what time, after the sale, the first symptoms of the disease became manifest. Under these circumstances the speculative opinions of the physicians, who attended the slave during his last illness, lire not of themselves sufficient to establish tlie precise origin of the disease. Dupré v. Demarest, 5 A. 592; Stackhouse v. Kendall, 7 A. 670; Williams v. Talbot, 12 A. 408.

Judgment affirmed.