First National Bank v. Burgess

Louisiana Court of Appeal

First National Bank v. Burgess

6 La. App. 366, 1927 La. App. LEXIS 454

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 13, 1927

DocketNo. 2963

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 La. App. 366 (First National Bank v. Burgess) 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

First National Bank v. Burgess, 6 La. App. 366, 1927 La. App. LEXIS 454 (La. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

WEBB, J.

The plaintiff, First National Bank of Arcadia, instituted this action against defendants, William Hartsell and B. Burgess, on a promissory note which purports to have been drawn by the defendants.

Service was not made on Hartsell, who appears to have left the state, and Burgess answered, denying that he signed the note, and on trial judgment was rendered rejecting plaintiff’s demands, from which it appeals.

OPINION

The evidence shows that Hartsell, desiring to obtain a loan from the bank, the latter prepared the note which was given to Hartsell and that Hartsell returned and presented the note which appears on the face to have been signed by Hartsell and “B. Burges”, and on the issue presented by the answer of defendant, plaintiff called one of its officers, who stated that he had known Burgess for about twenty years, and he had seen Burgess write and sign his name several years prior to the time of the trial, and that he thought the signature o.n the note was the signature of the defendant Burgess, although the signature was “B. Burges” and defendant’s name is “B. Burgess”.

[367]*367The defendant testified that he did not sign the note and that the signature was not his signature, and there is not any evidence in the record which goes to affect the credibility of the defendant, and we are of the opinion that the evidence does not show that defendant signed the note, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.

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

WEBB, J.

The plaintiff, First National Bank of Arcadia, instituted this action against defendants, William Hartsell and B. Burgess, on a promissory note which purports to have been drawn by the defendants.

Service was not made on Hartsell, who appears to have left the state, and Burgess answered, denying that he signed the note, and on trial judgment was rendered rejecting plaintiff’s demands, from which it appeals.

OPINION

The evidence shows that Hartsell, desiring to obtain a loan from the bank, the latter prepared the note which was given to Hartsell and that Hartsell returned and presented the note which appears on the face to have been signed by Hartsell and “B. Burges”, and on the issue presented by the answer of defendant, plaintiff called one of its officers, who stated that he had known Burgess for about twenty years, and he had seen Burgess write and sign his name several years prior to the time of the trial, and that he thought the signature o.n the note was the signature of the defendant Burgess, although the signature was “B. Burges” and defendant’s name is “B. Burgess”.

[367]*367The defendant testified that he did not sign the note and that the signature was not his signature, and there is not any evidence in the record which goes to affect the credibility of the defendant, and we are of the opinion that the evidence does not show that defendant signed the note, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 La. App. 366, 1927 La. App. LEXIS 454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-national-bank-v-burgess-lactapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack