Rossignol v. Estate of Triche

28 La. Ann. 144
Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided February 15, 1876·No. No. 6096·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Morgan, J.

This is a suit on an open account and on a promissory, note, secured by mortgage, upon which plaintiff had judgment.

The grounds upon which the defendant asks us for a reversal of tho judgment are —

First — That the account sued on exceeds five hundred dollars, and is only proved by one witness; and

Second — That on cross-examination plaintiff said that the note sued on was given to him as security in part payment of tho accounts sued on; that tho plantation, of Drauzin Tricho owed him $2611 50, and he owed one-half of this sum to Sevin & Gourdain, in New Orleans, and Mr. Drauzin Triche gave him tho note to secure the one-half due Sevin & Gourdain, as colla,toral security, but not to secure the one-half duo him.

First — Tho account is composod of many items, not one of which amounts to five hundred dollars, and tho witness swore that each of the items was correctly stated in the account. This was competent and sufficient evidence.

Second — Tho note is held by plaintiff, who is, inlaw, tho owner thereof. Payment to him discharges the debt, and there is no plea of want of consideration therefor.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Rossignol v. Estate of Triche, 28 La. Ann. 144 (La. 1876).

28 La. Ann. 144 (Rossignol v. Estate of Triche) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Daughdrill v. Williams
191 So. 2d 653 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1966)
Thompson v. Steinkamp
5 La. App. 274 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1926)
Succession of Mereno
108 So. 133 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1926)
J. C. Healy Co. v. Burglass
1 La. App. 741 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1925)