Case Name: M. A. Baker v. Stoutmeyer & Co.
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1884
Citations: 2 McGl. 61
Docket Number: No. 181
Parties: M. A. Baker v. Stoutmeyer & Co.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the various Courts of Appeal of the state of Louisiana (McGloin)
Volume: 2
Pages: 61–65

Head Matter:
No. 181.
M. A. Baker v. Stoutmeyer & Co.
1. Litigants may, by implication as well as by expression, Waive particular issues in a cause.
2. Whore a plaintiff expressly alleges that the defendant firm is commercial, and that its members are bound soUdatily, and the answer has no express denial of this fact; where, also, the judgment below was in accordance with the allegation, and the defendants moving in the court a qua for a new trial make no complaint upon this score, and where, in argument before this Court, oral and. printed, no objection is made to this feature of the judgment; held, that the issue will be considered waived, and this Court will not consider it upon application for a rehearing.
3. Upon questions of fact, this Conrt will not lightly disturb the finding of the. Judge a quo.
4 There.is nothing in the contraot of mandate which makes it essentially gratuitous.
5. There is nothing in La. Civil Code, Art. 2991, which requires that the agreement which shall render a contract of agency not gratuitous shall be express.
6. Such an agreement, therefore, may be implied from the circumstances of the oase, from actions, and even from the silence or inaction of parties.
7. When, therefore, one party performs for another, services for which it is the universal custom to charge nud reoeive compensation at rates fixed by usage, an agreemeut for such compensation, in default of expression to the contrary, will be implied.
Appeal from, the Civil District Court. Tissot, J.
Jas. B Guthrie for plaintiff.
J. R. Beckwith for defendants, appellants.

Opinion:
Rogers, J.
A careful examination of the facts in this case, does not convince us that- the Judge a-quo erred.
His review of the law, in a very able opinion which he read on deciding the case, is, in our opinion, correct, and we adopt his reasons for judgment.
Judgment affirmed.