Bank of Baldwin v. Broussard
Louisiana Court of Appeal
1Opinion
ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING.
MOUTON, J.
Counsel for applicant does not complain of that part of our opinion wherein we held that plaintiff bank was not compelled to resort to a separate proceeding under the revocatory action. We therefore assume that the errors complained of refer exclusively to our judgment on the- merits of the case.
In support of their contention that Broussard, was solvent at the time of the transfer, counsel for Banta rely to a large extent on the testimony of Lebourgois, who gave Broussard an extension for the bank of 30 days on the note.
It is true Lezourgois said…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Montgomery v. ChaneySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1858
- Cannon v. WhiteSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1861
- Gaidry v. LyonsSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1877
- Davis v. SternSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1860
- Boissy v. LacouSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1855
3Cited by1 opinion
- Bank of Baldwin v. BroussardLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1929