Excel Finance Camp, Inc. v. Sommers

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Excel Finance Camp, Inc. v. Sommers

140 So. 2d 800, 1962 La. App. LEXIS 1913

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 7, 1962

DocketNo. 406

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 140 So. 2d 800 (Excel Finance Camp, Inc. v. Sommers) 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

Excel Finance Camp, Inc. v. Sommers, 140 So. 2d 800, 1962 La. App. LEXIS 1913 (La. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

YARRUT, Judge.

Plaintiff-Appellant sues on a note allegedly executed by Defendants, Sommers and Rohrbacker. Rohrbacker allowed a default judgment to be entered against him, and is not a party to this appeal. Defendant Sommers charged his signature is a forgery. From an adverse decision, Plaintiff has appealed.

The issue is solely one of fact, whether or not Defendant Sommers’ signature is a forgery, the burden of proof resting on Plaintiff. Teutonia Bank & Trust Co. v. Heaslip, 138 La. 860, 70 So. 861; Hemenway, Inc. v. Guillory, La.App., 155 So. 57.

Plaintiff’s manager and cashier both testified that Sommers signed the note in their presence, which they remembered distinctly, in spite of their having witnessed the signing of six or seven hundred notes in the [801]*801interim. Defendant testified that he had not signed the note in question, but did admit that he had previously signed a note as an accommodation to Rohrbacker; and that he refused to sign the note here because of Rohrbacker’s insolvency. Defendant Sommers produced samples of his signature appearing on his driver’s license, two applications for motor vehicle registrations, on his answer filed herein, and three samples written by him in open court. In comparing the genuine signature with that on the note here, the trial court concluded Sommers’ signature on the note was a forgery. No handwriting expert was produced by either party.

Our own examination and comparison of the signatures in question convinces us, as it did the trial court, that the signature on the note is not that of Defendant Sommers. Plaintiff has failed on the burden to prove the genuineness of Sommers’ signature.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed; Plaintiff to pay costs in both courts.

Affirmed.

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

YARRUT, Judge.

Plaintiff-Appellant sues on a note allegedly executed by Defendants, Sommers and Rohrbacker. Rohrbacker allowed a default judgment to be entered against him, and is not a party to this appeal. Defendant Sommers charged his signature is a forgery. From an adverse decision, Plaintiff has appealed.

The issue is solely one of fact, whether or not Defendant Sommers’ signature is a forgery, the burden of proof resting on Plaintiff. Teutonia Bank & Trust Co. v. Heaslip, 138 La. 860, 70 So. 861; Hemenway, Inc. v. Guillory, La.App., 155 So. 57.

Plaintiff’s manager and cashier both testified that Sommers signed the note in their presence, which they remembered distinctly, in spite of their having witnessed the signing of six or seven hundred notes in the [801]*801interim. Defendant testified that he had not signed the note in question, but did admit that he had previously signed a note as an accommodation to Rohrbacker; and that he refused to sign the note here because of Rohrbacker’s insolvency. Defendant Sommers produced samples of his signature appearing on his driver’s license, two applications for motor vehicle registrations, on his answer filed herein, and three samples written by him in open court. In comparing the genuine signature with that on the note here, the trial court concluded Sommers’ signature on the note was a forgery. No handwriting expert was produced by either party.

Our own examination and comparison of the signatures in question convinces us, as it did the trial court, that the signature on the note is not that of Defendant Sommers. Plaintiff has failed on the burden to prove the genuineness of Sommers’ signature.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed; Plaintiff to pay costs in both courts.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 So. 2d 800, 1962 La. App. LEXIS 1913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/excel-finance-camp-inc-v-sommers-lactapp-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack