Cole Oil & Tire Co. v. Davis
Louisiana Court of Appeal
567 So. 2d 122 (1990)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
In October of 1986, Cole Oil & Tire Company, Inc. (Cole) (plaintiff) acquired Boss Oil’s accounts receivable. One of the accounts belonged to Tommy Davis (defendant) and had an outstanding balance of $8,021.85. When Davis allegedly failed to pay $3,021.85 due on the account, Cole sued Davis to recover the money. At trial, Cole offered a monthly-statement document, an adding-machine tape, and 14 Boss Oil sales invoices detailing Davis’s purchases from Boss Oil between July and September of 1986. The monthly statement was a summary of Cole’s payment records for Davis’s account, which showed total payments of $5,000 and a remaining balance of $3,021.85. Six of the Boss Oil invoices were signed by someone named Jerry and showed that payment was received, one was signed by Bobby Stuart and showed that payment was received, six were unsigned, and one had an illegible signature. Cole’s president, the sole testifying witness, could not identify the names on the invoices and could not explain discrepancies in the invoices. The trial court admitted the documents into evidence over Davis’s objection and allowed Cole’s president to testify about them. On cross-examination, Cole’s president said that he had no personal knowledge of Boss Oil’s business records or sales invoices. The court ultimately entered judgment in Cole’s favor for $3,021. Davis appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Marvin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.