Calvert v. Tunstall
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE PARISH AND CITY OF NEW-ORLEANS. The defendant sued upon his promissory note, pleaded the general issue, and afterwards moved to file- an amended answer, setting, up a want of consideration. The court a quo overruled the motion, there was judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed. The judge erred in refusing an amendment to the defendant’s answer. prayed a confirmation of the judg-. ment with damages for a frivolous appeal. ■
1Opinion of the CourtPorter, J.
The defendant was sued on a promissory note, and pleaded the general issue. He afterwards moved for leave to amend his answer, by withdrawing the denial and pleading want of consideration. The court refused him leave to do so, and judgment being given against him, he appealed.
By the Code of Practice, the defendant may amend on the same condition on which this privilege is given to the *208plaintiff, namely, that the substance of the demand in the r J . one instance, and the defence m the other is not altered.
After a general denial, an amended answer setting up a want of consideration to the note…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Knoblock & Rainold v. PoseySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1910
- Avegno v. FosdickSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1876
- Thompson v. Bland Produce Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1962