Peytavin v. Maurin
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE SECOND DISTRICT THE JUDGE OF THE EIGHTH PRESIDING. The plaintiff, as surviving partner of Reymond & Peyta-yin, instituted suit in 18~7, on a note of the defendant given to the late firm, the 13th September, 1806, for $974 37, pay. able one year after date. The defendant pleaded the general issue, admitted his signature to the note, but in an amended answer alleged payment. There was a verdict and judgment for the defendant.
Read the full summary
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE SECOND DISTRICT THE JUDGE OF THE EIGHTH PRESIDING. The plaintiff, as surviving partner of Reymond & Peyta-yin, instituted suit in 18~7, on a note of the defendant given to the late firm, the 13th September, 1806, for $974 37, pay. able one year after date. The defendant pleaded the general issue, admitted his signature to the note, but in an amended answer alleged payment. There was a verdict and judgment for the defendant. The testimony of several persons, formerly in the employ of the late firm of Reymond & Peytavin, shews that payments had been made on account…
1Opinion of the Court
Porter, .J.
delivered the opinion of the court.
This suit was instituted on a promissory note, dated twenty-four years before the filing of the petition. The defence was that it had been paid. Testimony in supp9rt of thi~ allegation was offered. It does not clearly nor conclusively establish the flict, but presents circumstances from ~vhich the jury, after such a lapse of time, ~ere justified in inferring it. We do not feel inclined or authorized to disturb the verdict.
The declarations of the plaintiffs agent are not legal testimony agains* the defendant, and should be rejected by the court.…
2Cited by1 opinion
- White v. AllenLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1919