Florsheim Bros. v. Holt
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL from the Tenth Judicial District Court, parish of Caddo. Boarman, J. T. T. & A. D. Land, for defendant and appellant* contended : Defendant pleaded that plaintiffs’ petition disclosed no cause of action.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Tenth Judicial District Court, parish of Caddo. Boarman, J. T. T. & A. D. Land, for defendant and appellant* contended : Defendant pleaded that plaintiffs’ petition disclosed no cause of action. It is well settled in our jurisprudence that an executor or administrator cannot, by making or indorsing a note or draft in liis official capacity, bind the estate when not originally liable for the debt, bub that he will thereby render himself responsible, individually. Russel vs. Cash, 2 L. 188 ; Gillett vs. Rachal, 9 R. 276 ; 12 R. 16 ; 8 A. 124 ; 21 A. 285 ; 25 A. 562 ; 26 A. 660.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
White, J.
We do not think there was error in overruling the exception ; the face of the papers showed that the indebtedness inured to the benefit of the succession ; and, taking this for true, there was a good cause of action. The -want of allegation that Harris had authority to sign the note was certainly a defect in the pleadings ; but, taking the petition as a whole, we think the inference fairly deducible that the act of Harris in signing the note was the act of the executor. The contract made with Harris we consider undoubtedly threw upon him the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Kirby v. Bradford CountySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
3Cited by3 opinions
- Maxwell-Yerger Co. v. RoganSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1910
- Ness v. WoodSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- Succession of HuxenSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1918