Legal Opinion

Slidell v. Pritchard

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided June 15, 1843PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Appeal from the Commercial Court of New Orleans, Watts, J. contending that the contract, out of which the plaintiff’s claim originated was illegal, and that the money already paid to him under it should be refunded, cited Civil Code, arts. 1887, 1889. Chitty on Contracts, 521, 523. 1 Story on Equity, 297, 370, 371, 372. Jackson v. Davison, 4 Barn. & Aid. 691. Murray v. Reeves, 8 Barn. & Cress. 854. Rogers v. Kingston, 2 Bing. 441. Wiggen v. Bush, 12 Johns. 306. Perry v.…

Read the full summary

Appeal from the Commercial Court of New Orleans, Watts, J. contending that the contract, out of which the plaintiff’s claim originated was illegal, and that the money already paid to him under it should be refunded, cited Civil Code, arts. 1887, 1889. Chitty on Contracts, 521, 523. 1 Story on Equity, 297, 370, 371, 372. Jackson v. Davison, 4 Barn. & Aid. 691. Murray v. Reeves, 8 Barn. & Cress. 854. Rogers v. Kingston, 2 Bing. 441. Wiggen v. Bush, 12 Johns. 306. Perry v. Frilot, 6 Mart. N. S. 217. Leggett v. Peet et al., 1 La. 297. Robinson v.. His Creditors, 1 Rob. 454.

1Opinion of the CourtSimon, J.

The plaintiff seeks to recover the amount of sundry promissory notes, drawn by George W. Pritchard, to the order of Joseph Tagert, Jr., and endorsed by the latter. Three of' the notes sued on, are dated the 31st of May, 1839, and the fourth note is dated the 4th of November, 1840. They amount altogether to the sum of $2149 66 j and were all duly protested for nonpayment, at maturity

The defendants resist this claim, on the following allegations ;• That there was no consideration given for the notes sued on, or, if any, that the same was illegal and void. That the maker of the notes sued on,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Leggett v. PeetSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1830

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. In re Leeds & Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1897
  2. Pierson v. Metropolitan BankSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1901
  3. Consolidated Companies, Inc. v. AngellozLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1936
  4. Succession of LanauxSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1894

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API