Bernstein v. Willis

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Bernstein v. Willis

120 So. 636, 167 La. 1031, 1929 La. LEXIS 1726

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedFebruary 11, 1929

DocketNo. 28071.

StatusPublished

This text of 120 So. 636 (Bernstein v. Willis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bernstein v. Willis, 120 So. 636, 167 La. 1031, 1929 La. LEXIS 1726 (La. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

O’NIELL, O. J.

The defendant has appealed from a judgment rendered against him on two promissory notes, for $1,500 each, secured by mortgage. His defense was that, having signed the notes and mortgage for the purpose of using them as collateral security, he left them with one J. V. Hemler for safe-keeping, in an iron safe used by Hemler, and that Hemler abstracted and used the notes without defendant’s knowledge; and that Hemler was, when he negotiated the notes, in such a mental condition as the result of excessive drinking of alcoholic liquor, and perhaps the use of drugs, that he was incapable of transacting business.

The fact is that Hemler pledged the notes, in lieu of a bond, to secure the faithful performance of a contract on his part, and forfeited the notes as stipulated damages for failure to fulfill his obligations under the contract. The evidence does not sustain the allegation that Hemler was mentally incapable of transacting business when he negotiated the notes. The notes were negotiable instruments — in fact, they were payable to the order of the maker and indorsed by him— and, as the plaintiff acquired them in due course and for a valuable consideration, he is entitled to collect the amount.

The judgment is affirmed.

THOMPSON, J., takes no part.

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

O’NIELL, O. J.

The defendant has appealed from a judgment rendered against him on two promissory notes, for $1,500 each, secured by mortgage. His defense was that, having signed the notes and mortgage for the purpose of using them as collateral security, he left them with one J. V. Hemler for safe-keeping, in an iron safe used by Hemler, and that Hemler abstracted and used the notes without defendant’s knowledge; and that Hemler was, when he negotiated the notes, in such a mental condition as the result of excessive drinking of alcoholic liquor, and perhaps the use of drugs, that he was incapable of transacting business.

The fact is that Hemler pledged the notes, in lieu of a bond, to secure the faithful performance of a contract on his part, and forfeited the notes as stipulated damages for failure to fulfill his obligations under the contract. The evidence does not sustain the allegation that Hemler was mentally incapable of transacting business when he negotiated the notes. The notes were negotiable instruments — in fact, they were payable to the order of the maker and indorsed by him— and, as the plaintiff acquired them in due course and for a valuable consideration, he is entitled to collect the amount.

The judgment is affirmed.

THOMPSON, J., takes no part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 So. 636, 167 La. 1031, 1929 La. LEXIS 1726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bernstein-v-willis-la-1929.