Neda v. Simon
Supreme Court of Louisiana
PPEAL from the District Court for the Parish of St. Martin, Dupre, J. on the question as to the competency of the maker, as a witness, cited: Gox v. Williams, 5 N. S. 142. Waters v. JPetrovie, &e., 5 L. 589. Johnson v. Marshall, 4 Rob. 157; 7 Rob. 244; ib. 3C0; 5 Ann. 188. As to the admissibility of parol testimony, to show that the defendant -who had expressly bound himself in solido, was merely a surety, defendant’s counsel cited: Robertson v. Hott, 2 N. S. 124; 8 N. S.…
Read the full summary
PPEAL from the District Court for the Parish of St. Martin, Dupre, J. on the question as to the competency of the maker, as a witness, cited: Gox v. Williams, 5 N. S. 142. Waters v. JPetrovie, &e., 5 L. 589. Johnson v. Marshall, 4 Rob. 157; 7 Rob. 244; ib. 3C0; 5 Ann. 188. As to the admissibility of parol testimony, to show that the defendant -who had expressly bound himself in solido, was merely a surety, defendant’s counsel cited: Robertson v. Hott, 2 N. S. 124; 8 N. S. 268; Dioight v. Linton, 8 Rob. '57; 3 Ann. 235; 4 Ann. 540.
1Opinion of the CourtSpoefoed, J.
The defendant is sued upon a promissory note of the following tenor:
“$2000. Nouvelle-Oeleans, le 29 mai, 1839.
“ Dans un au de cette date, nous payerons solidairement, l’un pour l’autre, á Mr. Hypolite Chrétien, la somme de deux mille piastres, valeur regue, avec les intéréts de dix pour cent, l’an, a dater de ce jour jusqu’á parfait paiement.
[Signé] P. Lebesque,
Ed. Simon.”
The defendant pleads that, notwithstanding the form of the instrument, he was really but a surety for Lebesque, and that he has been discharged by the prolongation of the term of payment to his principal by the holder of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Montross v. HillmanSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1845
3Cited by1 opinion
- Oexner v. LoehrMissouri Court of Appeals · 1906