Wall v. Bry
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL by the defendant Hamilton, from a judgment of the District Court of Ouachita, Curry, J. The interrogatories not having been served on plaintiff’s counsel, could not be taken for confessed.
Read the full summary
APPEAL by the defendant Hamilton, from a judgment of the District Court of Ouachita, Curry, J. The interrogatories not having been served on plaintiff’s counsel, could not be taken for confessed. Stat. of 10th February, 1843. 12 La. 600. The waiver of protest should be construed in conformity with the provisions of the Civil Code, arts. 1940, 1941, 1945, 1946. It should be construed in the sense in which the person malting the promise believed the opposite party to have accepted it. 9 Rob. 308. The waiver extended only to the pretest — not to the demand and notice. A waiver must be express…
1Opinion of the Court
The judgment of the court was pronounced by
Slidell, J.
The defendant Hamilton was sued as endorser. In his answer he alleges that the plaintiff is not the true owner of the note, but that it belongs to one Burr, who expressly agreed with the respondent and the prior endorser, that he would take steps to make the money out of the makers before taking any proceedings against the respondent, and that he would only look to the respondent in case he was unable to make the money out of the makers; that the endorsement was made on these conditions; and that the suit had been brought in the name of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Union Bank v. HydeSupreme Court of the United States · 1821
3Cited by3 opinions
- George v. Shreveport Cotton Oil Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1905
- Burgettstown National Bank v. NillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Wisdom & Levy v. BilleSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1908