Miller v. Cohea
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Appeal from the court of the parish and city of New-Orleans. To this suit, which was brought on'a promissory note, the defendant pleaded prescription and the general issue. On the trial of the cause the plaintiff offered in evidence the note sued on, without adducing any proof of'the defendant’s signature.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the court of the parish and city of New-Orleans. To this suit, which was brought on'a promissory note, the defendant pleaded prescription and the general issue. On the trial of the cause the plaintiff offered in evidence the note sued on, without adducing any proof of'the defendant’s signature. The latter objected to its admission, but was overruled by the court on the groud that the answer of the defendant precluded the necessity of proving the execution of the note. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff and the defendant appealed. made the following points: 1. It…
1Opinion of the CourtMathews, J.
This is a suit on a promissory note, wherein the plaintiff obtained judgment and the defendant appealed.
The principal question in the cause arises on a bill of exceptions taken to the opinion of the court below, by which the note was allowed to be given in evidence to the jury withoutproofof the signature of the defendant.
Itis not necessary to prove the defendant’s signature to a note unless it he specially denied.
The answer contains the general issue anti a plea of prescription. In support of the latter, reliance is had on the provisions of the Louisiana Code. But they afford no aid to the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- State v. De La Monica.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1947