Thomasson v. Baum
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL FROM THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT. This action was brought against the defendant as acceptor of the following bill of exchange: “ Louisville, Nov. 20, 1832. Thirty days after date, pay Mr. W. P. Thomasson, or order, four hundred dollars, and place the same to your obt. servant. “ Signed, Dudr. Heinsake. “ Dr. Wm. Baum, present.” It was endorsed, “ accepted, payable as soon as convenient, Nov. 20, 1832. Dr. Wm. J. B. Baum.”
Read the full summary
APPEAL FROM THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT. This action was brought against the defendant as acceptor of the following bill of exchange: “ Louisville, Nov. 20, 1832. Thirty days after date, pay Mr. W. P. Thomasson, or order, four hundred dollars, and place the same to your obt. servant. “ Signed, Dudr. Heinsake. “ Dr. Wm. Baum, present.” It was endorsed, “ accepted, payable as soon as convenient, Nov. 20, 1832. Dr. Wm. J. B. Baum.” The defendant denied his liability on the said bill, on the ground that the endorsement which he had made, did not constitute an acceptance of the bill. The case was…
1Opinion of the CourtMathews, J.
In this case a motion is made on the part of the appellee to dismiss the appeal, on the grounds that the record does not contain all the evidence on which the case was adjudged in the court below, and that no statement of facts was made out, as required by law. The record exhibits no statement of facts, and the certificate of the clerk shows that the testimony taken in open court, was not reduced to writing; under these circumstances, it is impossible for the appellate court to examime and decide the case on its merits.
It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the appeal he…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Shouse v. KrusorMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
- Henri v. FrancincuesSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1879