Avery v. Lauve
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL from the Commercial Court of New Orleans, Watts, J. contended that the defendants were not bound by the note, citing Atwood v. Mun-nings, 7 Barn. & Cress. 378 (14 Eng. Com. Law Rep. 42). Oreenslade v. Dower, Ibid. G35 (14 E. C. L. R. 106). Dickinsons. Valpy, 10 Ibid. 128 (21 E. C. L. R. 41). Bramah v. Roberts, 3 Bing.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Commercial Court of New Orleans, Watts, J. contended that the defendants were not bound by the note, citing Atwood v. Mun-nings, 7 Barn. & Cress. 378 (14 Eng. Com. Law Rep. 42). Oreenslade v. Dower, Ibid. G35 (14 E. C. L. R. 106). Dickinsons. Valpy, 10 Ibid. 128 (21 E. C. L. R. 41). Bramah v. Roberts, 3 Bing. N. C. 963 (32 E. C. L. R. 404). Emly v. Lye, 15 East. 7. Hill v. Bannister., 8 Cowen, 31. Lloyd v. Rreshfield, 2 Carr & Payne, p. 325 (12E. C. L. R. 149).
1Opinion of the Court
The judgment of the court was pronounced by
Slidell, J.
This suit is .brought upon a promissory note of the following ■tenor :
“ Dolls. 504 55. Cincinnati, Sept. 2, 1845.
Six months after date, the Steamboat Belle Creole and owners promise to pay Avery, Wayne & Co., or order, five hundred and four dollars, fifty-five cents, for value received in building materials furnished said boat, payable at'the •counting house of Omer Lame, New Orleans.
For the steamer Belle Creole and owners,
Dimitry & -Plaisent.”
The petition is based upon the note which it recites, and refers to as annexed. It charges that…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Credit Alliance Corp. v. Centenary CollegeLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1931
- Morlet v. MausLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1936