Coleman v. Flint

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Coleman v. Flint

16 La. 250

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedOctober 15, 1840

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 16 La. 250 (Coleman v. Flint) 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

Coleman v. Flint, 16 La. 250 (La. 1840).

Pincite

Opinion

Garland, J.,

delivered-the opinion of the court.

This action is brought to enforce the payment of a promissory note, drawn by Griffin, payable to the order of Cotton, who transferred it by endorsement to E. H. Flint & Co., and they to the plaintiffs. Judgment was given against E. H. Flint alone, who is the surviving partner of the late firm of E. H. Flint & Co., and he appealed. The note has been regularly protested, and notice given to the endorser. Our attention has been directed to the protest, and it is said the demand of payment is not sufficiently set forth in it, as the notary does not say he made the demand on the cashier in the banking-house. We think no one can read the protest without being satisfied the demand was there made. We must consider the appeal as one for delay, and, therefore, affirm the judgment, with five per cent, damages and costs.

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

Garland, J.,

delivered-the opinion of the court.

This action is brought to enforce the payment of a promissory note, drawn by Griffin, payable to the order of Cotton, who transferred it by endorsement to E. H. Flint & Co., and they to the plaintiffs. Judgment was given against E. H. Flint alone, who is the surviving partner of the late firm of E. H. Flint & Co., and he appealed. The note has been regularly protested, and notice given to the endorser. Our attention has been directed to the protest, and it is said the demand of payment is not sufficiently set forth in it, as the notary does not say he made the demand on the cashier in the banking-house. We think no one can read the protest without being satisfied the demand was there made. We must consider the appeal as one for delay, and, therefore, affirm the judgment, with five per cent, damages and costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 La. 250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coleman-v-flint-la-1840.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack