Coco v. Gumbel

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Coco v. Gumbel

17 So. 421, 47 La. Ann. 966, 1895 La. LEXIS 578

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedApril 8, 1895

DocketNo. 11,700

StatusPublished

This text of 17 So. 421 (Coco v. Gumbel) 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

Coco v. Gumbel, 17 So. 421, 47 La. Ann. 966, 1895 La. LEXIS 578 (La. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiffs, as holders of the notes of which Paulin J. Coco was the maker, secured by vendor’s mortgage, bearing in favor of his vendor, Robert Coco, assert by third oppositions, that F. Gumbel, liquidator, had no privilege or mortgage; that he was not subrogated to rights of Thorpe, the vendor of Robert Coco, but that he had absolutely paid the notes, and that he had thereby entirely extinguished the vendor’s mortgage.

The court having determined the question of law presented by an appeal, when i( appears that through error, there was an omission to introduce certain evidence to explain receipts given, and the court concludes such error should not prejudice the defendant and appellant, the case will be remanded.

Breaux, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

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

The plaintiffs, as holders of the notes of which Paulin J. Coco was the maker, secured by vendor’s mortgage, bearing in favor of his vendor, Robert Coco, assert by third oppositions, that F. Gumbel, liquidator, had no privilege or mortgage; that he was not subrogated to rights of Thorpe, the vendor of Robert Coco, but that he had absolutely paid the notes, and that he had thereby entirely extinguished the vendor’s mortgage.

The court having determined the question of law presented by an appeal, when i( appears that through error, there was an omission to introduce certain evidence to explain receipts given, and the court concludes such error should not prejudice the defendant and appellant, the case will be remanded.

Breaux, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 So. 421, 47 La. Ann. 966, 1895 La. LEXIS 578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coco-v-gumbel-la-1895.