Norton v. Dawson

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Norton v. Dawson

70 La. Ann. 464

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedAugust 15, 1867

DocketNo. 95

StatusPublished

This text of 70 La. Ann. 464 (Norton v. Dawson) 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

Norton v. Dawson, 70 La. Ann. 464 (La. 1867).

Pincite

Opinion

Labatjve, J.

This suit is brought on a promissory note for $1,000, the consideration of which is proved to be treasury notes of the so-called Confederate States.

Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff for $500 in gold, and tho defendants appealed.

Parol evidence was properly admitted, to prove the consideration of the note, although excepted to, and to show that it was Confederate money. This kind of currency was created to assist the rebellion against the Government, and the giving circulation to it was immoral and against public policy, and it is well settled that in immoral and reprobated contracts, parol evidence is admitted to vary and contradict written contracts. We cannot enforce this obligation, according to many decisions of this Court. 5 R. 101. 1 A. 192. 10 A. 199. 12 A. 151.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment be reversed, and the suit dismissed at the costs of the plaintiffs, in both courts.

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

Labatjve, J.

This suit is brought on a promissory note for $1,000, the consideration of which is proved to be treasury notes of the so-called Confederate States.

Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff for $500 in gold, and tho defendants appealed.

Parol evidence was properly admitted, to prove the consideration of the note, although excepted to, and to show that it was Confederate money. This kind of currency was created to assist the rebellion against the Government, and the giving circulation to it was immoral and against public policy, and it is well settled that in immoral and reprobated contracts, parol evidence is admitted to vary and contradict written contracts. We cannot enforce this obligation, according to many decisions of this Court. 5 R. 101. 1 A. 192. 10 A. 199. 12 A. 151.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment be reversed, and the suit dismissed at the costs of the plaintiffs, in both courts.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 La. Ann. 464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norton-v-dawson-la-1867.