Harrison v. Bisland
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Appeal from the Commercial Court of New Orleans, Watts, J. The plaintiff’s assignor was subrogated to the rights of the Carrolton Bank, under art. 2156, § 1. A verbal agreement to subrogate was sufficient, and parol evidence admissible to prove it. 12 Duranlon, No. 117, p. 184. Boilleux, Comm.de Code Civil, vol. 2, p. 639. Dalloz, Dictionaire Général de Jurisprudence, vol. 4, p. 403, Nos. 18, 19, 20. Plaintiff was legally subrogated under § 3 of art. 2156. The evidence…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Commercial Court of New Orleans, Watts, J. The plaintiff’s assignor was subrogated to the rights of the Carrolton Bank, under art. 2156, § 1. A verbal agreement to subrogate was sufficient, and parol evidence admissible to prove it. 12 Duranlon, No. 117, p. 184. Boilleux, Comm.de Code Civil, vol. 2, p. 639. Dalloz, Dictionaire Général de Jurisprudence, vol. 4, p. 403, Nos. 18, 19, 20. Plaintiff was legally subrogated under § 3 of art. 2156. The evidence shows, that the drafts executed by John C. Harrison were merely collateral security for the payment of the debt due by…
1Opinion of the CourtSimon, J.
This is an attempt to make the defendant responsible for, and to compel him to pay, the sum of $17,301 66, being the amount of two promissory notes subscribed, in solido, by Thomas R. Shields and the defendant, payable to the order of John Roulh, and endorsed by the latter. The amount claimed is subject, however, to certain credits, more particularly stated in the petition.
The facts and circumstances of the case, as shown by the evidence, are these : Thomas R. Shields was, in the beginning of the year, 1839, indebted to the commercial house of Bullitt, Shipp & Co., in a large sum of money. In…
2Cited by2 opinions
- The Nereide, Bennett, MasterSupreme Court of the United States · 1815
- Fievel v. ZuberTexas Supreme Court · 1887