Langstaff v. Lees

11 La. Ann. 271
Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided April 15, 1856·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Buchanan, J.

The plaintiffs are holders of two notes of defendants, made payable to their own order, and by themselves endorsed in blank, which were protested at maturity for non-payment.

The defendants, by their answer, admitted their signatures, and pleaded “ failure of consideration,” without any specification, either of the consideration of these notes, or of the time, place or circumstances of its failure.

We agree with the District Court, that this plea is too vague to authorize the admission of proof upon it. Pargoud v. Guise, 6 La. 77.

The appellees have asked for damages, as for a frivolous appeal. But we have doubts whether this is a case for the application of such a penalty. We must infer from the bill of exceptions, that some sort of evidence was offered by defendants, which was ruled out, solely by reason of the insufficiency of the plea.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Langstaff v. Lees, 11 La. Ann. 271 (La. 1856).

11 La. Ann. 271 (Langstaff v. Lees) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Columbia Restaurant v. Sadnovick
157 So. 280 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1934)
Commercial Bank & Trust Co. v. Provensal
135 So. 700 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1931)