Poutz v. Duplantier
Superior Court of Louisiana
The is was a suit aaainst the endorser of a note. A new trial had been granted, the jury having given a verdict contrary to law and the opinion of the court: the note was prqduced with a blank endorsement. A blank indorse ment does not pass the property of the note. The Ordinance of Bilbao requires that every in-dorsement should be filled up with the name of the indorser-it should mention in what the value of a note was received, and have a date.
Read the full summary
The is was a suit aaainst the endorser of a note. A new trial had been granted, the jury having given a verdict contrary to law and the opinion of the court: the note was prqduced with a blank endorsement. A blank indorse ment does not pass the property of the note. The Ordinance of Bilbao requires that every in-dorsement should be filled up with the name of the indorser-it should mention in what the value of a note was received, and have a date. This part of the ordinance has never been received in this country. Two genflemen were introduced as witnesses, who deposed that they had resided,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
A blank indorseinent authori-ses the holder to write whatever he pleases : an order to pay to any person, a receipt, or a power to receiVe the contents. It is surely an incomplete indorsement till it be filled up. But the party may fill it up at any time; belbit the note goes to tbe jury.
The indorsement was accordingly filled up.
The defendant then shewed that the plaintiff |a| brought suit against the maker of the note had obtained judgment, and issued an execution against his lands, which had been sold on the ordinary credit, under the actbf 1808, ch. 15, but the day of payment…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Baker v. MontgomerySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1816
- Barry v. Louisiana Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1822