Meyer v. Taliaferro

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Meyer v. Taliaferro

1 Gunby 79

DecidedJuly 1, 1885

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Gunby 79 (Meyer v. Taliaferro) 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

Meyer v. Taliaferro, 1 Gunby 79 (La. Ct. App. 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

Clinton, J.

Where a suit is brought on a contract signed by an agent, and a letter authorizing the agent to make the contract has been lost, proof of its contents may be introduced without advertisement of its loss. The letter is not the document on which the action is founded.

2. The genuineness of the letter need not be proved by witnesses who have seen the writer write and sign her name; but any other evidence, even circumstantial facts going to show the existence and authenticity of the letter, are admissible.

3. When an obligation to do is actively violated, or when the obligor puts it out of his power to comply, no default is necessary.

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

Clinton, J.

Where a suit is brought on a contract signed by an agent, and a letter authorizing the agent to make the contract has been lost, proof of its contents may be introduced without advertisement of its loss. The letter is not the document on which the action is founded.

2. The genuineness of the letter need not be proved by witnesses who have seen the writer write and sign her name; but any other evidence, even circumstantial facts going to show the existence and authenticity of the letter, are admissible.

3. When an obligation to do is actively violated, or when the obligor puts it out of his power to comply, no default is necessary.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Gunby 79, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meyer-v-taliaferro-lactapp-1885.