Krumbhaar v. Ludfling
Supreme Court of Louisiana
-Authorities cited Chitty 87, Lex Merc 620, 1 tíos. Es? Pul. 652. Walwing vs. St. Quintín, 2, 71 R 718, Rogers vs. Stephens \ Caines 157. '~~Haffmanvs. Smith, 7 Mass. T. R. 452, Wirden vs. Tucker 1. Pothier 146, 157, 1 71 R. 408, Buckerdike vs. Bollman. Max. Pock. Diet. 27, 102, 103, Chitty 27. Comyns on Contracts 252, 253. 5 East. 148 Appleton vs. Bisks, Comyn's Dig. verbo Attorney C. 19. 1 East. 434, 2 Id. \ 142 3 Esp.
Read the full summary
-Authorities cited Chitty 87, Lex Merc 620, 1 tíos. Es? Pul. 652. Walwing vs. St. Quintín, 2, 71 R 718, Rogers vs. Stephens \ Caines 157. '~~Haffmanvs. Smith, 7 Mass. T. R. 452, Wirden vs. Tucker 1. Pothier 146, 157, 1 71 R. 408, Buckerdike vs. Bollman. Max. Pock. Diet. 27, 102, 103, Chitty 27. Comyns on Contracts 252, 253. 5 East. 148 Appleton vs. Bisks, Comyn's Dig. verbo Attorney C. 19. 1 East. 434, 2 Id. \ 142 3 Esp. Rep. 266. 1 Pothier on Obligations 55, 2 Dallas 223, Peake's Ev. (Am. ed.J 165.
1Opinion of the CourtMathews, J.
delivered the opinion of the Court.* Suit was brought in the Court below b/ the appellant, on a bill of exchange drawn by the appellee in his favor, on F. & H. Amelung, which was accepted by them, payable at the Bank, of the U. S. in Philadelphia ; and was afterwards protested»for non payment. The insufficiency of the protest and want of regularity in the notice to the drawer as required by kiw, have . been insisted on' by his counsel, before this Court, as exonerating him from any obligation to pay the bill. It does *641not appear, from: the record of the proceedings in the District Court, that…
2Cited by1 opinion
- McEvers v. Steamboat SangamonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1855