McCalop v. Newcomb
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Appeal from the District Court of East Baton Rouge, Burk, J. contended that the maker and endorser of anote are bound in solido, citing Duranton, vol, 6, nos. 207, 213, 241, 242, 243, 187, 188, 189, 190. Civil Code, arts. 2086 to 2089, 2103, 2102. Code of 1808, p. 282. Toullier, vol. 6, p. 751. Poth. on Obi.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of East Baton Rouge, Burk, J. contended that the maker and endorser of anote are bound in solido, citing Duranton, vol, 6, nos. 207, 213, 241, 242, 243, 187, 188, 189, 190. Civil Code, arts. 2086 to 2089, 2103, 2102. Code of 1808, p. 282. Toullier, vol. 6, p. 751. Poth. on Obi. (Evans’ E d.) vol. 1, pp. 172, 174,180. 4 La. p. 151. 9 Rob. 26. Code Napoléon, arts, 1200, 1201. Pandectas Frangaises, vol. 5, pp. 104,105. The acknowledgement of the obligation by one of the parties in solido, interrupted prescription as to his codebtors. Civil Code, arts. 2486, 3517. 7…
1Opinion of the Court
The judgment of the court was pronounced by
Kins, J.
The defendants, Newcomb and Carl, are sued as the maker and endorser of a promissory note. Carl, the endorser, pleaded the prescription of five years. His defence prevailed in the court below, and the plaintiff has appealed.
The note sued on matured, and was protested, on the 5th of January, 1841. The defendant, Carl, was cited in this action on the 21st of Febuary, 1846, more than five years after the maturity of the note. Newcomb, the maker, acknowledged his liability on the note repeatedly, before the expiration of the five years, and the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Wooten v. WimberlySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1973
- Lewy v. WilkinsonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1914
- Finance Security Co. v. WilliamsLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1949
- Cambre v. GeraldLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1971