Union Bank v. Hyde
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Appeal from the Parish Court of New Orleans, Maurian^J. pleaded prescription against the re-conventional demand, citing Civ. Code, art. 3505. Defendants are entitled to recover back the amount of the notes paid through error, the money not being due either legally or naturally. Civ. Code, art. 1887. 17 La. 127. The burden of proving that notice was given so as to bind them is on the plaintiffs ; defendants cannot be required to establish a negative.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Parish Court of New Orleans, Maurian^J. pleaded prescription against the re-conventional demand, citing Civ. Code, art. 3505. Defendants are entitled to recover back the amount of the notes paid through error, the money not being due either legally or naturally. Civ. Code, art. 1887. 17 La. 127. The burden of proving that notice was given so as to bind them is on the plaintiffs ; defendants cannot be required to establish a negative. That an endorser’s promise to pay, made after his discharge is not binding, unless the holder show affirmatively that the endorser was aware of…
1Opinion of the CourtBullard, J.
This action was commenced on the first of February, 1843, by the Union Bank, as the holder of two pro*419missory notes drawn by E. D. Hyde & Co., and endorsed by their co-defendants T. R. Hyde & Co., which appear to have been regularly protested, and notice given to the endorsers.
The drawers allege in defence, that about the 8th day of November, 1836, T. R. Hyde & Brother, being the holders of several promissory notes amounting to $2748 08, did at that time, and on the 6th December, discount said notes in the Union Bank, whereby the plaintiffs became owners of the same. That they were by the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Garland v. President, Directors, & Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1812
- Harris v. AllnuttSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1838
- Dranguet v. PrudhommeSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1831