Bank of Louisiana v. Holmes
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Appeal by the plaintiffs, from a judgment against them as in case of a non suit, rendered by the District Court of East Feliciana, Johnson, J. cited 13 La. 368. Chitty on Bills, 373. Ed. 1836. The burden of proving that the defendant knew of his discharge at the time he asked for indulgence, is upon the plaintiffs. 12 La. 465. 13 La. 421, 2 Rob, 158. Story on Bills, No; 320. cited 8 Mart. 147. 11 La, 17.
1Opinion of the CourtMartin, J.
The bank is appellant from a judgment refusing to declare the liability of the defendant, as endorser of a note, in consequence of the absence of a legal protest. The counsel of the bank does not pretend that there was a legal protest; but contends that the liability of the defendant results from his having solicited and obtained indulgence from the bank. This would be true, if knowledge of the defendant’s having been discharged, by the informality of the protest, at the time he solicited indulgence, could be shown. But in the absence of any proof of his knowledge of the circumstance which…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Harris v. AllnuttSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1838
- Williams v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1839
- Tomes v. MontanyeSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1842