Case Name: KAIN AND STROUD vs. COMMERCIAL BANK
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1837-02
Citations: 10 La. 542
Docket Number: 
Parties: KAIN AND STROUD vs. COMMERCIAL BANK.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 10
Pages: 542–543

Head Matter:
KAIN AND STROUD vs. COMMERCIAL BANK.
Easteiot Disx.
February, 1837.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT.
On a question of fact, whether the plaintiffs sold the articles charged, to the defendants or to the undertaker, when the evidence fails to show the court below erred, its judgment will not be disturbed.
This is an action, instituted by tlie plaintiffs against the defendants, charging them with sundry articles, as pillaster -chimney pieces, Roman cement, grates, and various other things, according to a detailed account rendered and annexed to the petition, amounting’to one thousand two hundred and seventy-nine dollars and twenty-five- cents, per the order of Mr. Clarkson.
The defendants pleaded a general denial.
Upon the trial, testimony was taken to show who ordered the materials in question, the bank denying that the plaintiffs had any right to look to them, &c.
After examining all the testimony, which relates solely to -matters of fact, the district judge rejected the main part of the demand, and gave judgment for only ninety-seven dollars and twenty-five cents, and costs. The ■ plaintiffs appealed.
On a question of fact, whether the plaiptifFs sold the articles charged, to the defendants or to the undertaker, •when the evidence fails to show the court below erred, its judgment . will not be disturbed*
G. JB. Duncan, for the plaintiffs.
Conrad, contra.

Opinion:
Bullard, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
This case presents only a question of fact, to wit: whether certain mantel pieces which were put up in the banking house of the defendants, were sold by the plaintiffs to them, or to the undertaker who had constructed the building. An attentive examination of the evidence has failed to satify us, that the court below came to an erroneous conclusion.
It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed, with costs.