Cochran v. Perry
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Eastern Dist. APPEAL Prom Pete court of the third judicial DISTRICT PoA Tflfi PARISH OF EAST FELICIANA, TIIE JUDGE OF TIIE EIGHTH PRESIDING. This is a suit instituted by the holder of a promissory note, signed by the defendant, and endorsed in blank by the payee. The defendant pleaded a general denial, and expressly denied his signature to the note sued on. On. the trial, witnesses were called to prove the signature.
Read the full summary
Eastern Dist. APPEAL Prom Pete court of the third judicial DISTRICT PoA Tflfi PARISH OF EAST FELICIANA, TIIE JUDGE OF TIIE EIGHTH PRESIDING. This is a suit instituted by the holder of a promissory note, signed by the defendant, and endorsed in blank by the payee. The defendant pleaded a general denial, and expressly denied his signature to the note sued on. On. the trial, witnesses were called to prove the signature. The defendant’s counsel prayed the court to charge the jury, “ that as no proof of title or ownership was made to the note, the plaintiff could not recover and a bill of…
1Opinion of the Court
The defendant, the maker of a promissory note, being sued by the holder and endorser, formally denied his signature. A jury impannelled to try that issue, found a verdict against him, and he has appealed from a judgment founded thereon.
On the trial, the defendant prayed the court to instruct the jury, that as no proof of title or ownership to the note was given, the plaintiff could not recover. The judge refused so to charge, and he excepted. The judge was clearly correct in refusing to allow the defendant to avail himself of any other means of defence, after having formally denied his…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Kendig & Co. v. CampbellLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1884
- Behan v. BallardLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1884