Florance v. M'Farlane

Florance v. M'Farlane, 15 La. 231 (1840)

Court: Supreme Court of Louisiana · State Highest Courts
Decided: April 15, 1840
Citations: 15 La. 231

Cited by 5

Headnotes

The general issue dispenses with proof of the signature of the defendant, who is sued alone as maker of a note, but not that of the payee and first endorser. Where the judgment of the inferior court states, that “the plaintiff proved all his allegations,” and there is no proof of the signature of the first endorser in the record, the case will be remanded for another trial. The general issue dispenses with proof of the signature of the defendant who is sued alone as maker of a note but not 'that .of the payee and first endorser. Where the judgment of the inferior court states that “ the plaintiff proved all his allegations,” and there is no proof of the signature of the first endorser in the record, the case will be remanded for another trial.

Summary

APPEAL FROM THE COMMERCIAL COURT OF NEW-ORLEANS. This is an action against the defendant as the maker of a note, payable to the order of Henry H. Marks, and by him endorsed in blank. The defendant pleaded a general denial; and upon the production of the note and protest in evidence, there was judgment against him. The judge states, in his judgment, that the plaintiff proved all the allegations in his petition; but there is no evidence in the record of the signature of the payee and endorser. The defendant appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Martin, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant, sued on his promissory note by an endorsee, pleaded the general issue. Judgment was given against him, and he appealed.

The plea of the general issue dispenses with proof of the signature of the defendant, but not that of the payee and first endorser. The court, in ifs judgment, attests that the plaintiff proved all his allegations. This circumstance does not enable us to consider the signature of the payee as proved, when no evidence of it appears in any other part of the record ; but it raises sucb a presumption as, in our opinion, authorizes us to conclude that justice requires the case should be remanded.

*232 It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the Commercial Court be annulled and reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings according to . r ° ° law; the plaintiff and appellee paying the costs of the appeal.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 5 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

N. O. Texas & Mexico Railway Co. v. Lehman, Stern & Co.3 Pelt. 118 (1920)
Strange v. Albrecht183 So. 209 (La. 1938)
Strange v. Albrecht178 So. 884 (La. Ct. App. 1938)
Buffalo Specialty Co. v. G. Pitard's Sons14 Teiss. 395 (1917)
Miltenberger v. City of New Orleans2 McGl. 283 (1884)

Most recent

Strange v. Albrecht183 So. 209 (La. 1938)
Strange v. Albrecht178 So. 884 (La. Ct. App. 1938)
N. O. Texas & Mexico Railway Co. v. Lehman, Stern & Co.3 Pelt. 118 (1920)
Buffalo Specialty Co. v. G. Pitard's Sons14 Teiss. 395 (1917)
Miltenberger v. City of New Orleans2 McGl. 283 (1884)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list