Follin v. Foucher
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL FROM THE PARISH COURT, FOR THE PARISH AND CITY NEW-ORLEANS. This is an action instituted by the plaintiif against the defendants A. • Foucher and M. Andry, as endorsers on the following promissory note: ■ “ Le quinze Mai prochain je payerai it Vordre de Mr. ¿2. Foucher, it. la Banque Consolidée, cinq mille piastres, valeur regue.” “Nouvelle-Orléans, le 2 Novembre 1833.” “A. FOUCHER, Jr. Endorsed. “A. Foucher,” Manuel Andry,1 Ch. Follin.”
Read the full summary
APPEAL FROM THE PARISH COURT, FOR THE PARISH AND CITY NEW-ORLEANS. This is an action instituted by the plaintiif against the defendants A. • Foucher and M. Andry, as endorsers on the following promissory note: ■ “ Le quinze Mai prochain je payerai it Vordre de Mr. ¿2. Foucher, it. la Banque Consolidée, cinq mille piastres, valeur regue.” “Nouvelle-Orléans, le 2 Novembre 1833.” “A. FOUCHER, Jr. Endorsed. “A. Foucher,” Manuel Andry,1 Ch. Follin.” The defendants Foucher and Andry severed in ' their answers, but both of them disavowed their signatures on the back of the note, and averred they…
1Opinion of the Court
Martin, X,
delivered the opinion of the court.
In this case, after the trial had proceeded before the jury, and part of the evidence had been received, a juror was discharged and another, one substituted and sworn in his place. The plaintiff’s counsel insisted on opening the case , again, but the court refused to permit him to do so, and a bill of exception was taken.
We are clearly of opinion that the court should have suffered the counsel to open the case. What had preceded the swearing in of the last juror was a mis-trial. As soon as he was sworn the trial 'began de novo and ought to have…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Lindsey v. Tioga Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1902