Lescouzeve v. Ducatel

18 La. Ann. 470
Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided June 15, 1866·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Hyman, C. J.

Plaintiffs sued A. Ducatel, notary, and the other defendants, the securities on Ms bond as notary, to recover of them for money deposited by plaintiffs with him, A. Ducatel, to enable Mm to have erased a certain mortgage on plaintiff’s property, which he neglected to do.

The District Judge rendered judgment in favor of plaintiffs against A. Ducatel, and in favor of the other defendants against plaintiff's. Plaintiffs appealed.

The securities of a notary public are only liable on Ms failure to discharge the duties of his office.

The law has not made it the official duty of a notary to receive money to erase mortgages.

It is decreed that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed.

The costs of appeal to be paid by plaintiffs.

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

Lescouzeve v. Ducatel, 18 La. Ann. 470 (La. 1866).

18 La. Ann. 470 (Lescouzeve v. Ducatel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Texas Co. v. Mattison
125 So. 147 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1929)
Lacour v. National Surety Co.
85 So. 600 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1920)