Rio v. Gordon
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Eastern Dist. APPEAL FROM THE COMMERCIAL COURT OF NEW-ORLEANS. This'is an action against the maker and endorser of two promissory notes. The notes are protested and annexed to the petition for reference. The defendants severed in their answers. The maker of the note excepted, and denied that the plaintiff was the owner of the notes, or had a right to receive payment. On the merits, he denies having signed the notes sued on.
Read the full summary
Eastern Dist. APPEAL FROM THE COMMERCIAL COURT OF NEW-ORLEANS. This'is an action against the maker and endorser of two promissory notes. The notes are protested and annexed to the petition for reference. The defendants severed in their answers. The maker of the note excepted, and denied that the plaintiff was the owner of the notes, or had a right to receive payment. On the merits, he denies having signed the notes sued on. The endorser pleaded the same exceptions, and other matters of defence set up in the answerof his co-defendant. The plaintiff, on leave, amended his petition, to correct…
1Opinion of the CourtMorphy, J.
The defendants are sued on two promissory notes, drawn by one of them to the order of, and endorsed by the other-*419They denied having signed notes such as those set forth in the petition. When the trial came on, the *plain tiff’s counsel moved the court for leave to correct an error in his petition, which described the notes as executed in 1837 instead of 1838. This was permitted by the court on the ground that the amendment was immaterial, the notes and protests having been annexed to the petition for reference. To this opinion the defendants excepted. We think that this decision, even if…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Maxwell v. Southern Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1895
- D. Rau & Son v. SmithLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1920