Lacoste v. De Armas
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL PROM THE COURT OF THE FOURTH DISTRICT, THE JUDGE OP THE THIRD PRESIDING. Suit by the indorsee, against the maker of a promissory note, who pleaded a want of consideration, and that the plaintiff had no interest in the note.
Read the full summary
APPEAL PROM THE COURT OF THE FOURTH DISTRICT, THE JUDGE OP THE THIRD PRESIDING. Suit by the indorsee, against the maker of a promissory note, who pleaded a want of consideration, and that the plaintiff had no interest in the note. In support of the defence, interrogations were put to the plaintiff, who answered: that he was not the real owner of u > the note, but that it belonged to the trustees of the college 0f Bardstown, for whose interest, and by whose orders the suit was instituted. There was judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed. 1. An action can only be brought by one…
1Opinion of the CourtPorter, J.
This is an action by the endorsee of a promissory note against the maker. The defence is, that the note was given without consideration, and that the plaintiff is the agent of the payee. The court below .gave judgment against the defendant, and he appealed.
There are two bills of exceptions on record, to the opinion of the court, refusing the defendant the right to make this defence, but as he was finally permitted to do so by a supplemental answer, and the cause comes up on its merits, we find it unnecessary to notice the opinions of the court to which these exceptions were taken.
The answer…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Griffith v. KellerSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1920