TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Maurin v. Chambers

Antoine Maurin v. Josias Chambers

Maurin v. Chambers, 6 Rob. 62 (1843)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Louisiana · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 15, 1843
Judges
Martin
Citations
6 Rob. 62
Headnotes
The statement on the face of a note, that the consideration for which it was given was the purchase of a tract of land, imposes no obligation on an endorsee to inquire whether his endorser had a good title to the property sold; nor does any such obligation result from its being endorsed, without recourse. The maker of a negotiable note cannot urge any inquiry into its consideration, when' in the hands of an endorsee, not shown to have had any knowledge of the failure of the consideration before he received it.
Summary
Appeal from the District Court of Rapides, King, 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 — Martin

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

Martin, J.

The defendant is appellant from a judgment on his promissory note. He pleaded, that it was given for the purchase of a tract of land from G. & F. Chretien, who endorsed the note to the plaintiff; that he is in danger of being evicted, a suit having been brought, and being still pending against him for that purpose ; that the note is not negotiable on its face ; and that the plaintiff knew there was a suit brought against the defendant for the land.

It is true, that the note states on its face that the consideration of it was the purchase of a tract of land from G. & F. Chretien, who endorsed it to the plaintiff, without, recourse. It is negotiable, being made payable to the order of the payee. There is no evidence of the knowledge of the plaintiff, when he received the note, that a suit was brought against the maker for the land. The consideration of a note being stated on its face to be the purchase of a tract of land, imposes no obligation on ihe endorsee to inquire whether his endorser had a good title to the land ; neither does this obligation result from the note being endorsed without recourse. The note being in the hands of an endorsee, the maker is disabled from urging an inquiry as to its consideration.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1917: 11925: 11938: 11975: 119172026peak 1917 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Continental Bank & Trust Co. v. Times Pub. Co.76 So. 612 (La. 1917)
  2. Offshore Crewboats, Inc. v. Harredge306 So. 2d 774 (La. Ct. App. 1975)
  3. Bank of Eudora v. Crowe2 La. App. 669 (1925)
  4. Continental Bank & Trust Co. v. Adamson194 So. 139 (La. Ct. App. 1938)

Most recent

  1. Offshore Crewboats, Inc. v. Harredge306 So. 2d 774 (La. Ct. App. 1975)
  2. Continental Bank & Trust Co. v. Adamson194 So. 139 (La. Ct. App. 1938)
  3. Bank of Eudora v. Crowe2 La. App. 669 (1925)
  4. Continental Bank & Trust Co. v. Times Pub. Co.76 So. 612 (La. 1917)

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