Bank of Louisiana v. Roberts
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL PROM THE COÜRT OF THE SIXTH DISTRICT, THE JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT PRESIDING. This is an action on a promissory note by the bank, to the Use of P. S. Newton & Co., to recover from Joseph Roberts, the payee and endorser; the plaintiffs are the endorsees or holders of the note, which is as follows: “Bayou Sally, St. Mary, March 1, 1832. $1,421. On the first day of March, 1832,1 promise to pay to Joseph Robert or order, at the counting room of A. Fiske & Co., in…
Read the full summary
APPEAL PROM THE COÜRT OF THE SIXTH DISTRICT, THE JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT PRESIDING. This is an action on a promissory note by the bank, to the Use of P. S. Newton & Co., to recover from Joseph Roberts, the payee and endorser; the plaintiffs are the endorsees or holders of the note, which is as follows: “Bayou Sally, St. Mary, March 1, 1832. $1,421. On the first day of March, 1832,1 promise to pay to Joseph Robert or order, at the counting room of A. Fiske & Co., in New-Orleans, $1,421, for value received, with 10 per cent, interest per annum thereafter, if not punctually paid. PETER H.…
1Opinion of the CourtMartin, J.
The defendant, sued as endorser of a promissory note, admitted he endorsed it, and with this exception, pleaded the general issue; and that the note on its face, bears interest at the rate of ten per centum after maturity, and therefore could not be discounted by the bank; that the plaintiffs’ rights have been extinguished by payment; he prayed leave to bring his anterior endorsers in warranty, and propounded interrogatories.
The court refused the leave to order the interrogatories to be answered. There was judgement against him, and he appealed.
His counsel has not insisted in this court, on…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Labiche v. JahanSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1844