Court Opinion

ID: 7159437
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-24 16:14:54.739018+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:15:19.807366
License: Public Domain

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? *11sold 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.