Case Name: GARAHAN vs. WEEKS
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1829-09
Citations: 8 Mart. (n.s.) 190
Docket Number: 
Parties: GARAHAN vs. WEEKS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Martin (Louisiana Term Reports)
Volume: 8
Pages: 190–192

Head Matter:
GARAHAN vs. WEEKS.
Appeal from the court of the fifth district, the judge of the district presiding.
A person undertaking to superitend a distillery and sugar plantation comes under an implied covenant, to possess and display the necessary skill to conduct such business.
On the 9th March 1825, David Weeks, a sugar planter in the parish of St. Martin, employed Thomas Garrahan the plaintiff, to make sugar and conduct a rum distillery.—Garahan continued in the employ of Weeks until the 13th of August 1826. During his employment he made 140 barrels of rum and 100 hogsheads of sugar for Weeks. He charged $400 for superintending and buildng up the rum distillery, and $200 for making the sugar.
A person exhibiting such skill in the performance of his agreement, will be enabled to recover the full amount of his wages due, in an action for work and labor done, on a quartum merruit.
Weeks refused to pay the wages of plantiff. alledging that by the ignorance and want of skill, and by the fraudulent representation of plaintiff that he understood his business well, he induced defendant to employ him, and that he lost thereby in damages $4000. Garnahan had judgmen for $535 83, as a balance due.

Opinion:
Martin J.
delivered the opinion of the court. This is an action for work and labor done in superintending the defendant's distillery and sugar plantation on a quantum merruit.
The latter pleaded he was imposed on by the plaintiff, who pretended great skill, while he was absolutely ignorant of the business he undertook, whereby great loss and damage was sustained by the defendant on account of the plaintiff's ignorance and lack of skill.— There was judgment against the defendant, and he appealed.
Bowen for the plaintiff Brownson for the defendant.
The appellee has contended, that the case turned entirely on a question of fact, and therefore the court ought to affirm the judgment with damages.
The appellant contends, that a question of law only is in the case, as to the implied covenant, resulting from the appellee's undertaking the work, that he possessed the necessary skill.
We admit this implied covenant, and have examined the testimony with attention, and it does not appear to us the district judge came to an incorrect conclusion.
It is therefore ordered adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the district court be affirmed with costs.