Otto v. Belden
This text of 28 La. Ann. 302 (Otto v. Belden) 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.
Opinion
The only party before the court is J. Q. A. Fellows, the indorser on the note sued on. His defense is want of demand.
[303]*303The allegations in the petition are that Belclen, the maker of the note, resides in this city, and that it was duly presented for payment at the maturity thereof, and payment refused. The certificate of the notary is that he went several times to the office of the drawer to demand payment thereof, and that he found the doors closed and no one in or about the premises of whom the demand could be made.
No demand was made of the maker. Therefore the indorser is discharged.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of the district court as against J. Q. A. Fellows be. avoided, annulled, and reversed, and that there be judgment in favor of the defendant, J. Q. A. Fellows, with costs.
Rehearing refused.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
28 La. Ann. 302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/otto-v-belden-la-1876.