Peters v. Federal Land Bank of New Orleans

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Peters v. Federal Land Bank of New Orleans

149 So. 362, 177 La. 671, 1933 La. LEXIS 1736

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMay 29, 1933

DocketNo. 31674.

StatusPublished

This text of 149 So. 362 (Peters v. Federal Land Bank of New Orleans) 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

Peters v. Federal Land Bank of New Orleans, 149 So. 362, 177 La. 671, 1933 La. LEXIS 1736 (La. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

ST. PAUL, Justice.

Some time in the summer of 1931, the exact date not appearing in the transcript, the defendant took out executory proceedings against the property of plaintiff upon a past due and unpaid mortgage note.

Before the sale plaintiff sued for an injunction to stop the proceedings, on the ground that defendant had granted him an extension of time until the 1st of January, 1932. The trial judge granted a temporary restraining order and a rule to show cause why the injunction should not issue. On the trial of the rule the judge refused the injunction and dissolved the restraining order, but granted plaintiff a suspensive appeal which is now before us.

The only evidence adduced by plaintiff is that of himself and a tenant farmer of the land, that once upon a time some unknown and unidentified person, claiming or assumed to be the agent of defendant, came into the plaintiff’s field and there, in the presence of the tenant farmer, granted plaintiff the alleged extension.

Pretermitting the fact that plaintiff and his tenant farmer disagree both as to time and circumstance about the granting of the alleged extension, that plaintiff then had a letter from the defendant declining even to discuss an extension and stating that the claim had been placed for collection in the hands of their attorney whom he (plaintiff) would have to consult in the matter, and that this attorney agreed that plaintiff would be granted an extension of two weeks and no more, which *673 extension of two weeks had expired when foreclosure proceedings were commenced, the fact remains that there is no evidence to show that there was any authority given to any one by defendant to grant plaintiff any extension whatever save and except the qualified authority given to the attorney and exercised by him as aforesaid, and the officers and agents of the defendant testify positively that no other extension was ever given.

The trial judge did not believe the alleged extension had been granted, and we think his judgment is correct.

Decree.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

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

ST. PAUL, Justice.

Some time in the summer of 1931, the exact date not appearing in the transcript, the defendant took out executory proceedings against the property of plaintiff upon a past due and unpaid mortgage note.

Before the sale plaintiff sued for an injunction to stop the proceedings, on the ground that defendant had granted him an extension of time until the 1st of January, 1932. The trial judge granted a temporary restraining order and a rule to show cause why the injunction should not issue. On the trial of the rule the judge refused the injunction and dissolved the restraining order, but granted plaintiff a suspensive appeal which is now before us.

The only evidence adduced by plaintiff is that of himself and a tenant farmer of the land, that once upon a time some unknown and unidentified person, claiming or assumed to be the agent of defendant, came into the plaintiff’s field and there, in the presence of the tenant farmer, granted plaintiff the alleged extension.

Pretermitting the fact that plaintiff and his tenant farmer disagree both as to time and circumstance about the granting of the alleged extension, that plaintiff then had a letter from the defendant declining even to discuss an extension and stating that the claim had been placed for collection in the hands of their attorney whom he (plaintiff) would have to consult in the matter, and that this attorney agreed that plaintiff would be granted an extension of two weeks and no more, which *673 extension of two weeks had expired when foreclosure proceedings were commenced, the fact remains that there is no evidence to show that there was any authority given to any one by defendant to grant plaintiff any extension whatever save and except the qualified authority given to the attorney and exercised by him as aforesaid, and the officers and agents of the defendant testify positively that no other extension was ever given.

The trial judge did not believe the alleged extension had been granted, and we think his judgment is correct.

Decree.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 So. 362, 177 La. 671, 1933 La. LEXIS 1736, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peters-v-federal-land-bank-of-new-orleans-la-1933.