Noble v. M'Micken

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Noble v. M'Micken

7 Mart. 188

DecidedJuly 1, 1820

StatusPublished

This text of 7 Mart. 188 (Noble v. M'Micken) 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

Noble v. M'Micken, 7 Mart. 188 (La. 1820).

Pincite

Opinion

Mathews, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. The material facts of this case are, in every respect, the same, as in that of Weeks vs. M'Micken. 7 Martin, 54. Money received by the defendant’s clerk, for the amount of the plaintiffs, afterwards stolen in the defendant’s store, and no circumstance shown, which might lessen the defendant’s responsibility. Of the correctness of the principle, which we decided on in the former case, we have no reason to doubt. A similar judgment must, accordingly, be rendered in this.

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the district court be affirmed, with costs.

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

Mathews, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. The material facts of this case are, in every respect, the same, as in that of Weeks vs. M'Micken. 7 Martin, 54. Money received by the defendant’s clerk, for the amount of the plaintiffs, afterwards stolen in the defendant’s store, and no circumstance shown, which might lessen the defendant’s responsibility. Of the correctness of the principle, which we decided on in the former case, we have no reason to doubt. A similar judgment must, accordingly, be rendered in this.

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the district court be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 Mart. 188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/noble-v-mmicken-la-1820.