Cammack v. Priestly
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Appeal from the Commercial Court of New Orleans, Watts, J." cited 7 Mart. N. S. 238, 616 ; Fagot v. Porche, 7 La. 562; BlancKard v. Cole, 8 La. 158; JonaU.Y. Ferrand, 3 Rob. 365 ; Low v. Thomas, 4 Rob. 183. The plea in reeonvention should ' be maintained. Code of Pract. art. 375; 10 La. 186; 18 La. 553 ; 6 Mart. N. S. 671 ; 7 Mart. N. S. 290, 291. The right to plead in reeonvention was not affected by the insolvency of Gil-dermeester. 1 Mart. N. S. 483.
1Opinion of the CourtSimon, J.
The plaintiff, who sues as the syndic of Gilder-meester & Co., seeks to recover the amount of two promissory notes, drawn and subscribed by the defendants Priestly & Bein, to the order of their co-defendant Richardson, and duly protested at maturity.
*424The defence sets up, that the notes sued on, were given to the insolvents by Priestly &■ Bien in the course of commercial transactions, and that when the same fell due, to wit, in December, 1842, and January, 1843, the drawers being unable to pay them, offered to Gildermeester & Co-, certain notes and drafts which were received by the latter as…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bayne v. FoxSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1841