Florance v. M'Farlane
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL FROM THE COMMERCIAL COURT OF NEW-ORLEANS. This is an action against the defendant as the maker of a note, payable to the order of Henry H. Marks, and by him endorsed in blank. The defendant pleaded a general denial; and upon the production of the note and protest in evidence, there was judgment against him.
Read the full summary
APPEAL FROM THE COMMERCIAL COURT OF NEW-ORLEANS. This is an action against the defendant as the maker of a note, payable to the order of Henry H. Marks, and by him endorsed in blank. The defendant pleaded a general denial; and upon the production of the note and protest in evidence, there was judgment against him. The judge states, in his judgment, that the plaintiff proved all the allegations in his petition; but there is no evidence in the record of the signature of the payee and endorser. The defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtMartin, J.
The defendant, sued on his promissory note by an endorsee, pleaded the general issue. Judgment was given against him, and he appealed.
The plea of the general issue dispenses with proof of the signature of the defendant, but not that of the payee and first endorser. The court, in ifs judgment, attests that the plaintiff proved all his allegations. This circumstance does not enable us to consider the signature of the payee as proved, when no evidence of it appears in any other part of the record ; but it raises sucb a presumption as, in our opinion, authorizes us to conclude that justice…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Strange v. AlbrechtSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1938
- Strange v. AlbrechtLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1938
- Buffalo Specialty Co. v. G. Pitard's SonsLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1917
- Miltenberger v. City of New OrleansLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1884
- N. O. Texas & Mexico Railway Co. v. Lehman, Stern & Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1920