4 La. 374 | La. | 1832
delivered the opinion of the court.
The plaintiff, who in his petition had claimed the specific performance of a sale of land and damages for its nonexecution, after the jury were sworn and under the direction of the court, restricted his claim to damages for the nonperformance of the contract. There was a verdict and judgement for the plaintiff, and the defendants appealed after an unsuccessful attempt to obtain a new trial.
It appears to us the jury erred. The contract was for the alienation of land, and the plaintiff did not offer any written evidence of it, although it was denied by the answer. His counsel has contended that as damages only are claimed, and not the performance of the contract, parole evidence is sufficient. Such a distinction cannot be admitted. The law requires that every contract for the alienation of land be reduced to writing, and forbids the admission of parole evidence of it. There is, however, an exception to it, but the present case is not within it. Lou. Code, 2255.
He who claims damages for the inexecution of a contract, must prove that it was actually entered into, in the same
It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged, and decreed, that the judgement of the District Court be annulled, avoided, and reversed, and that there be judgement for the defendants as in case of a nonsuit, with costs in both courts.