Carmena v. Bank of Louisiana
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL from tlie Commercial Court of New Orleans, Walts, J. The endorsers of the bill, who were the only solvent parties thereto, were discharged by the fault of defendants, who are consequently liable for the injury resulting from this neglect. See 7 Rob. 57. The endorsers were discharged by illegal delay in sending notice, and by the illegal manner of sending it.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from tlie Commercial Court of New Orleans, Walts, J. The endorsers of the bill, who were the only solvent parties thereto, were discharged by the fault of defendants, who are consequently liable for the injury resulting from this neglect. See 7 Rob. 57. The endorsers were discharged by illegal delay in sending notice, and by the illegal manner of sending it. As to the delay, see the judgment in the case in'7 Rob. 57. The manner of the notiee was illegal, in not having been sent to the office nearest to the residence of the endorsers; and in being put in the post-office not for the…
1Opinion of the Court
The judgment of the court was pronounced by
1 SiiDEim, J.
Carmena, being the holder of a bill of exchange drawn by *370jP. Doherty cm, and accepted by, Caldwell & Hickey of New Orleans, and ent^or3e^ by S. L. Doherty and A. Doherty, brought suit against the endorsers, and was nonsuited, upon grounds set forth in the decision of the former Supreme Court. See 7 Rob. p. 57. Carmena then instituted this suit in which he seeks to make the bank liable for the amount of the note, as having negligently performed the duty of collection. It appears that Carmena entrusted the note to the cashier of the branch…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Brown v. RichardsonThe Superior Court of New York City · 1868
- Duncan v. SparrowSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1842
- Ex parte MurraySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1843
3Cited by1 opinion
- Oakley v. CarrNebraska Supreme Court · 1902