TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Urquhart v. Thomas

David Urquhart v. Mrs. Octavie Bringier Thomas

Urquhart v. Thomas, 24 La. Ann. 95 (1872)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Louisiana · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 15, 1872
Docket
No. 3642
Judges
Wyly
Citations
24 La. Ann. 95
Headnotes
In a suit against a married ■woman, the plaintiff must show affirmatively, before be can recover, that the debt inured to the separate advantage of the wife. This must be shown whether the wife bo separate in property from hor husband or not. If it bo shown that a running account exists between the drawer of a draft and hor commission merchant, then and in such case the drawer is entitled to notice of the dishonor and non-payment by the drawee, and if such notice bo not given, then the drawer is not bound to the payee or holder of the bill, although it should bo shown that the drawer had no funds in the hands of the drawee at the time it was drawn.
Summary
Appeal from the Fourth Judicial District Court, parish of Ascension.. Beauvais, J.

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

Opinion of the Court — Wyly

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

Wyly J.

The plaintiff appeals from the judgment rejecting his demand against the defendant, Mrs. Thomas, a married woman, on two drafts for $1000 each. There are several defenses urged, but we deem it necessary only to consider two of them, to wit:

First — The debt did not inure to tbe benefit of the defendant, Mrs. Thomas, who is a married woman and separate in property from her husband.

Second — There was no notice of the dishonor of the bills, nor anything equivalent thereto.

It is well settled that in a suit against a married woman, whether separate in property or not, the plaintiff, in order to recover, must *96 ■show affirmatively that the debt inured to lief separate benefit or advantage. This material fact has not been shown in this case. 5 An. 173; 7 An. 144; 3 L. 74 ; 5 An. 495; 1 An. 428; 7 N. S. 64.

The obligation of the drawer may become unconditional by showing that due notice of dishonor was given, or by showing that the drawer, having no funds or business transactions with the drawee, had no right to expect the bill to be paid. 11R. 215; 19 L. 370 , and authorities cited.

In this case, although the defendant, Mrs. Thomas, had no funds in the hands of the drawee, it is shown that she had a running account with him as her commission merchant. We think she had a right to expect her drafts to be paid, and therefore ought to have had notice of dishonor, which was not given.

Let the judgment heroin be affirmed, with costs.

How later courts describe this case

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

1898: 118982026peak 1898 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. West v. DeMoss24 So. 325 (La. 1898)

Most recent

  1. West v. DeMoss24 So. 325 (La. 1898)

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.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list