Montross v. Hillman
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Appeal from the Commercial Court of New Orleans, Watts, J , The exception related to matters of form, and was inadmissible. Code of Pract. art. 344. Rawle v. Slápvñth, 8 Mart. N. S. 410.. The witness, Hillman, being interested in the costs, was incompetent. Lessassier v. Hertzel, 8 Mart. N. S. 265. 3 Starlde on Evid. p. 752. Greenleaf on Evid. p. 435, and notes. The retaining of the drafts by the defendants must be treated as an acceptance.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Commercial Court of New Orleans, Watts, J , The exception related to matters of form, and was inadmissible. Code of Pract. art. 344. Rawle v. Slápvñth, 8 Mart. N. S. 410.. The witness, Hillman, being interested in the costs, was incompetent. Lessassier v. Hertzel, 8 Mart. N. S. 265. 3 Starlde on Evid. p. 752. Greenleaf on Evid. p. 435, and notes. The retaining of the drafts by the defendants must be treated as an acceptance. Bayley on Bills, ed.-1830, ch. 6, sec. 1, pp. 191 — 194, and authorities there cited.Story on Bills, 272.
1Opinion of the CourtMorphy, J.
The defendants are sued for $704, on the allegation that, at their special instance and request, the plaintiffs did sell and deliver to them certain goods and merchandise, for the house of Hillman & Drew, and for Hercules Hillman, at Lake Providence, in the parish of Carroll; and on the further allegation that the defendants, at the time of making these purchases,did represent the said Hillman & Drew, and Hercules Hillman to be good and solvent, and guarantied the payment of the price of said goods to the plaintiffs, and that, on previous occasions# they had accepted and paid drafts drawn on…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- De L'Homme v. De KerlegandSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1832
3Cited by2 opinions
- Filhiol v. CobbSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1884
- Neda v. SimonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1855