Case Name: WILSON, CURATOR, &c., vs. PROCTOR
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1834-05
Citations: 6 La. 523
Docket Number: 
Parties: WILSON, CURATOR, &c., vs. PROCTOR.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 523–524

Head Matter:
WILSON, CURATOR, &c., vs. PROCTOR.
APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT.
Where a person is sued on an obligation and admits it, but pleads a deduction of the price of the object for which it was given, and fails to produce any evidence in support of his plea, and appeals, the appeal will be considered as taken for delay, and the judgment will be affirmed against him, with ten per cent, damages, and costs.
The plaintiff, as curator of the vacant estate of James Duffy, deceased, caused a certain slave belonging to said estate, to be sold at probate sale, at which the defendant became the purchaser, and gave his check on the Meehan, icks’ and Traders’ Bank for four hundred and eighty dollars, in part payment of the price. Afterwards, and before the check was presented, he went to the bank and countermanded payment. The plaintiff, in his capacity of curator, &c., instituted suit on the check against Proctor for its amount, with interest, and costs of protest.
Proctor, in his answer, admitted that he gave the check for the object stated in the plaintiff’s petition, and countermanded the payment of it at the bank. He alleges that the slave was not such as had been represented, and thát he was afflicted with a redhibitory disease in the neck, by which his value was greatly diminished, and for which he claims a deduction of three hundred dollars, from’the original price, and sets it up in his answer as a reconventional demand.
On the trial no evidence was adduced by the defendant in support of his plea and'demand, and the district judge rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the amount of the check, costs of protest and interest, &c.
The defendant appealed.
On the appeal, the plaintiff and appellee prayed the affirmance of his judgment, with ten per cent, damages, as a frivolous appeal.
is sued ona an obligation and ad-mus it, butpieuds a deduction of tlíe object0 ioirn,i0andWfaiifto Seem support of his plea, and apppeals, the appeni will be considered as taken for delay, and the affirmedagainst cent.wEdamagos and costs.
Buchanan, for the plaintiff and appellee.
Culbertson, for the defendant and appellant.

Opinion:
Martin, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
The defendant was sued on a check which he had given t0 the plaintiff, and which had been protested. On the refusal of payment by the bank, he admitted that he gave the check in part payment of the price of a slave, sold him by'the plaintiff, as stated in the petition; but that since the purchase, he had discovered a redhibitory vice in the slave.
There was judgement for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.
It does not appear that the defendant adduced a tittle of . . . , evidence m support of his allegations. The answer admits 0 that Save the check, and that it was by his directions that payment was refused at the bank.
It is clear that he had no other object but delay in view i i it WilGIl HG cippGcU.6u*
It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed, with damages at the rate 0f ten per cent., and that the defendant pay costs in this court.