Case Name: MOUTON vs. DROZ
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1840-09
Citations: 16 La. 111
Docket Number: 
Parties: MOUTON vs. DROZ.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 16
Pages: 111–113

Head Matter:
MOUTON vs. DROZ.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE FIFTH DISTRICT, FOR THE PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, THE JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT PRESIDING.
A defence that bad shingles were furnished by plaintiif, will not avail the party, in his excuse for making a bad roof, when he made no objections to their quality before putting them on.
When a jury passes upon the manner in which a job of work has been performed, their verdict will not be disturbed on slight contradictory evidence.
This is an action of damages. The plaintiff shows that he contracted with the defendant to build him a house, which ‘was not finished and built in a workmanlike manner ; but on the contrary was so defective, and badly built and covered, i-hat plaintiff had to take off the entire roof from the house.; and cover it with new shingles. The rain beating through the roof, had destroyed the painting, and injured (he furniture.
A defence that were furnished inotavaUüSparí ty, in his excuse formakmgabad iroof, when he made no objections to their quality before putting them on.
He claims seven hundred dollars in damages.
The defendant pleaded a general denial, and averred that he finished the house in a workmanlike manner, and any defects in the roof were such as proceeded from causes independent of him. He prays that, the suit be dismissed.
The cause was tried before the court and a jury.
The evidence fully sustained the plaintiff’s allegations in relation to the roof of his house. The only palliation which appeared for the defendant was, that the shingles originally put on the house, were furnished by the plaintiff and a carpenter swore he had examined the roof, and he could not make a good roof with those shingles and guarantee it. Several other of defendants witnesses testified to the badness of the shingles furnished by the plaintiff, and to the bad weather when they were put on. The testimony in this respect was slightly contradictory.
The jury returned a verdict of three hundred and sixty-nine dollars and fifty-six cents, for the plaintiff, and from judgment rendered thereon, the defendant appealed.
Crow, for the plaintiff.
Neveu, for the appellant
insisted that, from the contradictions in the testimony, the case should be remanded.

Opinion:
Morphy, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an action for damages sustained by plaintiff, in consequence of the defective and unworkmanlike manner in which defendant has made the roof of a dwelling house which he had undertaken to build for the plaintiff. The defence set Up jSj that the defects, if any there are in the roof as com- . , . " , plained of, must be ascribed to the bad quality of the mate- Vials furnished by plaintiff, and not to the manner in which the work has been executed. This issue was placed before a jury, who brought in a verdict for a small portion of plaintiff's claim. The defendant, after an unsuccessful effort to obtain a new trial, appealed.
When a jury-passes upon the manner in which a job of work has been performed, their verdict will not be disturbed on slight contradictory evidence.
It does not appear that defendant before using the shingles, furnished by plaintiff, objected to their quality. On other points, the evidence is somewhat contradictory, but we have seen nothing in it which makes it our duty to disturb the verdict of the jury.
. It is, therefore, ordered, that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed, with costs.