Case Name: D. CULLOTTA & SON vs. CATHERINE PLANTING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1914-02-09
Citations: 11 Teiss. 102
Docket Number: No. 5970
Parties: D. CULLOTTA & SON vs. CATHERINE PLANTING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Decisions, Court of Appeal, parish of Orleans (Teissier)
Volume: 11
Pages: 102–103

Head Matter:
No. 5970.
D. CULLOTTA & SON vs. CATHERINE PLANTING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY.
Syllabus.
Involves only issues of fact.
Appeal from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division “D,”' No. 99,942. Hon. Porter. Parker, Judge.
Sol Weiss, for plaintiff and appellant.
Foster, Milling, Brian & Saal, for defendant and appellee.

Opinion:
His Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,
rendered the- opinion and decree of the-'Court, as follows:
Plaintiff claims $405, of which $220 under a contract and $185 for damages; the whole rejected by the judge a quo.
Defendant admits $20 damages, to-wit, $15 for use of a rope and $5 for a lost pulley. It also admits the contract, but claim-s defective performance, repaired at .a cost to it of $90.75, for which it claims credit.
There was also a reconventional demand, rejected below; but as plaintiff has alone appealed and defendant has not answered we are not concerned therewith.
The evidence satisfies us that $20 is .ample compensa,tion to plaintiffs for the use of their rope and for the lost pulley; also that plaintiff's work was defectively done and had to be corrected. But we think that the cost of correcting the defects was only $76.87 and not $90.75 as claimed.
Opinion and decree, February 9, 1914.
It is therefore ordered that .the judgment appealed from be amended so as to read as follows: It is ordered, adjudged and decreed that plaintiffs, D. Cullotta & Son, have judgment against defendant, Catherine Planting and Manufacturing Company for one hundred and sixty-three 13/100 dollars ($163.13) with legal interest from judicial demand and costs; and that the reconventional demand of the defendant be rejected. And as thus amended, the judgment appealed from is affirmed; defendant to pay costs of appeal, as well as the costs of the court a qua.