Slocomb v. Watkins
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Appeal from tbe Commercial Court of New Orleans, Watts, J. contended: I, that the affidavit of the plaintiffs should have been received to account for the erasure of defendant’s name. Civ. Code 2258. Cantrelle et al. v. Percy, 17 La. 520. 2, that the judgment, if against the’ plaintiffs, should have been one of non-suit.
Read the full summary
Appeal from tbe Commercial Court of New Orleans, Watts, J. contended: I, that the affidavit of the plaintiffs should have been received to account for the erasure of defendant’s name. Civ. Code 2258. Cantrelle et al. v. Percy, 17 La. 520. 2, that the judgment, if against the’ plaintiffs, should have been one of non-suit. The testimony of Dennis, one of the makers of the note, was properly received^ The maker of a note is a competent witness, in an action against the endorser, to prove payment. Chitty on Bills, 653 — 8. The' erasure of the defendant’s name is evidence from which it will he…
1Opinion of the CourtMorphy, J.
This suit is brought on a joint and several promissory note, drawn by Thomas R. and James A. Dennis, to the order of, and endorsed by the defendant. The answer pleads want of protest and notice ; it avers further, that defendant is not liable, because his name has been erased on the instrument sued on, and his obligation, if it ever existed, thereby cancelled, and because the makers have paid a judgment obtained against them in Mississippi on this same note. There was a judgment below in favor of the defendant, from which this appeal has been taken.
The record shows that in 1838, a suit was…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Twilbeck v. TwilbeckLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1966
- Johnson v. Bureau of Endowment of District Grand Lodge No 21Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1915