Carlin v. Dumartrait

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Carlin v. Dumartrait

5 Mart. (N.S.) 20

DecidedAugust 15, 1826

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Mart. (N.S.) 20 (Carlin v. Dumartrait) 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

Carlin v. Dumartrait, 5 Mart. (N.S.) 20 (La. 1826).

Pincite

Opinion

Martin, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. The plaintiff claims, adversely to the defendants, the amounts of sundry notes (and a judgment thereon) of Charles Massicot, transferred by Labarthe to the plaintiff, and sued by the defendants as a creditor of Massicot. The former had judgment, and the latter appealed.

We think the district court erred. The [21]*21plaintiff's right was an inchoate one, under the transfer or assignment of Labarthe's right, until notice was given to Massicot or his heirs-and until then Labarthe's interest was liable to be sued by any of his creditors. Civ Code, 368, article 128. We look in vain, in the statement of facts, for such a notice. It is sworn that the defendant was agent of Massicot’s heirs, and he had some knowledge of the plaintiff’s right-and the nature of his agency does not appear, and it should have been shewn that he was such an agent, to whom notice might have been given. The State Bank vs. Ell y, vol 4, 87. See also Bainbridge vs. Clay, ibid 56.

West'n Dis'ct August, 1826.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment be annulled, avoided, and reversed-and that there be judgment of nonsuit, with costs in both courts, against the plaintiff and appellee.

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

Martin, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. The plaintiff claims, adversely to the defendants, the amounts of sundry notes (and a judgment thereon) of Charles Massicot, transferred by Labarthe to the plaintiff, and sued by the defendants as a creditor of Massicot. The former had judgment, and the latter appealed.

We think the district court erred. The [21]*21plaintiff's right was an inchoate one, under the transfer or assignment of Labarthe's right, until notice was given to Massicot or his heirs-and until then Labarthe's interest was liable to be sued by any of his creditors. Civ Code, 368, article 128. We look in vain, in the statement of facts, for such a notice. It is sworn that the defendant was agent of Massicot’s heirs, and he had some knowledge of the plaintiff’s right-and the nature of his agency does not appear, and it should have been shewn that he was such an agent, to whom notice might have been given. The State Bank vs. Ell y, vol 4, 87. See also Bainbridge vs. Clay, ibid 56.

West'n Dis'ct August, 1826.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment be annulled, avoided, and reversed-and that there be judgment of nonsuit, with costs in both courts, against the plaintiff and appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Mart. (N.S.) 20, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carlin-v-dumartrait-la-1826.