Case Name: HENDERSON vs. BRYAN
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1838-02
Citations: 12 La. 10
Docket Number: 
Parties: HENDERSON vs. BRYAN.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 12
Pages: 10–11

Head Matter:
HENDERSON vs. BRYAN.
EASTERN DlS'JV
February, 1838.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT, FOR THE PARISH OF EAST FELICIANA, THE JUDGE OF THE EIGHTH PRESIDING.
This case involves a mere matter of fact, in which the evidence supports the judgment below.
The appellant was not mulct in damages for a frivolous appeal, from the presumption that he really imagined the judgment appealed from, erroneous.
This is an' action on a promissory note for five hundred dollars, signed by the defendant.
The defendant admitted his signature to the note, but averred it' Avas given for the price of a slave, which, it was ascertained since the sale, was afflicted at the time with redhibitory diseases, which were incurable, and rendered the slave wholly useless. He prayed that the demand be rejected, and the note cancelled.
There was testimony of Avitnesses taken on commission, and answers of plaintiff to interrogatories, to show the existence of disease. It Avas 'also shown the defendant was himself a physician, and knew the slave had a certain disease, which he had stated in a certificate on the day of sale, that he would hot undertake to cure for less than twenty-five dollars.
On the whole evidence, the judge Avas of opinion, the defence was not supported. From judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant appealed,
Andrews, for the plaintiff.
Lawson, contra.

Opinion:
Martin, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
The .defendant, sued upon his promissory note, resisted the claim on the ground that it Avas given for the price of a slave? sold him by the plaintiff, who died shortly after the sale, consequence of a redhibitory malady, under which she labored at the time of the sale. The case was tried by a jury, who found a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant is appellant from a judgment rendered thereon.
This case in-Joiner which the evidence supports the judgment be-
appell£mt was not m"lct in dcimusres for ft frivolous appeal, S^tion^ha/he really imagined thejudgmentap-pealed from, erroneous-
The case presents no question of law, and turns merely on that of fact. A close examination of the evidence has ,• n t ¶ • t• i ' satisfied us, that the jury did not err.
It does not, however, appear to us, that the present is a case in which the appellant should be mulcted in damages : 1 <J it may be presumed that, being a physician, he honestly imagined that a disease which baffled his skill, was incurable, and therefore a redhibitory one. J '
It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed, with costs.