Morgan v. Yarborough
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL PROM THE COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT, FOR THE TARISH OF EAST FELICIANA, THE JUDGE OF THE EIGHTH PRESIDING. This is an action by the transferree against the maker of the following promissory note: “ Dollars 432. Twelve months after date, I promise to pay to G. W. Munday, or bearer, the sum of four hundred and thirty-two dollars, with ten per cent, interest from the - date. Value received.
Read the full summary
APPEAL PROM THE COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT, FOR THE TARISH OF EAST FELICIANA, THE JUDGE OF THE EIGHTH PRESIDING. This is an action by the transferree against the maker of the following promissory note: “ Dollars 432. Twelve months after date, I promise to pay to G. W. Munday, or bearer, the sum of four hundred and thirty-two dollars, with ten per cent, interest from the - date. Value received. “ C. W. Yarborough.” 14th December, 1835.” Endorsed: “Pay the within note to Morgan Morgan, November 26, 1836.” G. W. Mtjnday. The defendant averred that the note was obtained from him through…
1Opinion of the CourtBullard, J.
This is an action upon a promissory note, made payable to the payee or bearer, in the name of a bearer by special assignment and transfer. The defence set up is, that the note was obtained from him in fraud, and without any valid consideration ; and that the present plaintiff has no interest in the note, but that it has been put into his hands to sue on in *76order to prevent the defendant from setting up his equitable defence.
When the defendant sets up an equitable de-fence to his note and charges fraud in the transfer of it to the plaintiff to deprive him of this defence, the burden of proof…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Hopkins v. National Surety Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1923
- City of New Orleans v. ManfreSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1904
- Wells v. ComptonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1842
- New Orleans Canal & Banking Co. v. TempletonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1868