Legal Opinion
Cadle Co. v. Johnson
Louisiana Court of Appeal
Decided May 15, 1998No. 97 CA 0946PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
I2FOIL, Judge.
At issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in allowing the makers of a promissory note to urge defenses to payment of the note. We hold that all of the defenses raised by the makers are barred by federal law, and reverse.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On April 3,1991, plaintiff, The Cadle Company (Cadle), filed this suit on a promissory note seeking to recover the balance owed thereon from the makers of the note, Bobby and Kim Johnson. The note in question was made payable on demand to the order of First National Bank, and plaintiff alleged that it is the holder…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- D'Oench, Duhme & Co. v. Federal Deposit InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- NCNB Texas National Bank v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1994
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. BernsteinCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1991
- F.D.I.C. v. McFarlandCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
- First Union National Bank of Florida v. HallCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1997
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Ascani v. AscaniLouisiana Court of Appeal · 2016