Lanclos v. Robertson
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE FOURTH DISTRICT, THE JUDGE OF THE SECOND PRESIDING This was. a suit by the endorsee against the maker of a promissory note, to which the latter pleaded that the note was given in part payment for land purchased of the plaintiff, to which he represented he had a good title, when in fact he had no title at all, by which false representation the respondent had been deceived, defrauded and damaged to a greater extent than the amount of the note.
Read the full summary
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE FOURTH DISTRICT, THE JUDGE OF THE SECOND PRESIDING This was. a suit by the endorsee against the maker of a promissory note, to which the latter pleaded that the note was given in part payment for land purchased of the plaintiff, to which he represented he had a good title, when in fact he had no title at all, by which false representation the respondent had been deceived, defrauded and damaged to a greater extent than the amount of the note. He further alleged, that the note had never been assigned. To prove the defence interrogatories were propounded to the…
1Opinion of the CourtPorter, J.
This is an action by the endorsee of a promissory note against the maker. The instrument is annexed to the petition. By it, the defendant one year after date, promised to pay Joseph Thompson, or order, five hundred and fifty-three dollars and sixty-two and a half cents, with interest at the rate of ten per centum from date, until payment. It is endorsed by the payee in blank.
The defendant pleaded that the note had not been assigned to the petitioner.
That it was given in payment of part of the land which the petitioner sold to him as clear of all incumbrance, and *260that the titles had been…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Copley v. McFarlandSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1844