Grantz v. Levy

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Grantz v. Levy

129 So. 139, 170 La. 712, 1930 La. LEXIS 1810

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJune 2, 1930

DocketNo. 30387.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 129 So. 139 (Grantz v. Levy) 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

Grantz v. Levy, 129 So. 139, 170 La. 712, 1930 La. LEXIS 1810 (La. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

ST. PAUL, J.

Plaintiff, a married woman, sues as the holder of a certain promissory note drawn by defendant to his own order and by him indorsed. She alleges that, the note is her separate property, acquired with her own separate funds.

Defendant admitted the execution of the note, but ■ denied that it was the separate property of the plaintiff, and averred that it belonged to the community between plaintiff and her husband, and could be sued for only by him.

There was judgment for plaintiff on the face of the pleadings, and defendant appeals.

We think the judgment.was correct; it was mere surplusage for plaintiff to allege that the note was her separate property. The note was payable to the holder thereof, and she was the holder.

Payment to her would have been a valid payment and a complete discharge of the drawer, no matter to whom the note belonged. R. C. C. art. 2145, subd. 1. And it is immaterial to defendant whether plaintiff was the real owner of the note sued on or only the agent of her husband, unless he had a defense against the latter; and this he does not set up in his answer. Hence his answer is not a sufficient defense, and judgment was properly rendered against him. Case, Receiver, v. Watson et al., 21 La. Ann. 731.

We see no1 reason, however, for inflicting damages for a frivolous appeal, since plaintiff is getting 8 per cent, on her money, and 10'per cent, attorneys fees on the whole; and hence has suffered no damages.

Decree.

The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.

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

ST. PAUL, J.

Plaintiff, a married woman, sues as the holder of a certain promissory note drawn by defendant to his own order and by him indorsed. She alleges that, the note is her separate property, acquired with her own separate funds.

Defendant admitted the execution of the note, but ■ denied that it was the separate property of the plaintiff, and averred that it belonged to the community between plaintiff and her husband, and could be sued for only by him.

There was judgment for plaintiff on the face of the pleadings, and defendant appeals.

We think the judgment.was correct; it was mere surplusage for plaintiff to allege that the note was her separate property. The note was payable to the holder thereof, and she was the holder.

Payment to her would have been a valid payment and a complete discharge of the drawer, no matter to whom the note belonged. R. C. C. art. 2145, subd. 1. And it is immaterial to defendant whether plaintiff was the real owner of the note sued on or only the agent of her husband, unless he had a defense against the latter; and this he does not set up in his answer. Hence his answer is not a sufficient defense, and judgment was properly rendered against him. Case, Receiver, v. Watson et al., 21 La. Ann. 731.

We see no1 reason, however, for inflicting damages for a frivolous appeal, since plaintiff is getting 8 per cent, on her money, and 10'per cent, attorneys fees on the whole; and hence has suffered no damages.

Decree.

The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 So. 139, 170 La. 712, 1930 La. LEXIS 1810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grantz-v-levy-la-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack