Baltz v. Franco

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Baltz v. Franco

6 La. App. 120, 1927 La. App. LEXIS 372

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedApril 21, 1927

DocketNo. 10,605

StatusPublished

This text of 6 La. App. 120 (Baltz v. Franco) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baltz v. Franco, 6 La. App. 120, 1927 La. App. LEXIS 372 (La. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

JONES, J.

This is a suit for six hundred eighty-three and 76-100 ($683.76) dollars, the amount of eleven promissory notes [121]*121with eight per cent interest from respective maturities plus ten iper cent attorney fees.

Defense is want of consideration.

There was judgment for plaintiff and defendant has appealed.

The evidence shows that the plaintiff, an innocent third party, acquired before maturity the note (drawn by the maker and by him endorsed) from the original holder as collateral security for another debt.

Under the circumstances the defense of want of consideration has no merit as plaintiff was a hqlder in due course.

See Act 64 of 1904, Sec. 28.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI