Specialty Candy Co. v. Davis

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Specialty Candy Co. v. Davis

133 So. 493, 16 La. App. 140, 1931 La. App. LEXIS 469

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedApril 9, 1931

DocketNo. 3304

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 133 So. 493 (Specialty Candy Co. v. Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Specialty Candy Co. v. Davis, 133 So. 493, 16 La. App. 140, 1931 La. App. LEXIS 469 (La. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

WEBB, J.

In this action plaintiff sought to recover judgment against defendant as the guarantor of an open account due plaintiff by H. Oppenheimer, and plaintiff appealed from a ruling sustaining an exception of no cause of action and a judgment dismissing his suit.

Appellant has not made any appearance here. The written act evidencing the guarantee made the basis of the suit shows that the guarantee related to a specific lot of goods sold to Oppenheimer by plaintiff long prior to the date of the account for which defendant is sought to be held liable as guarantor. The guarantee was not a continuing guarantee and there could not be any recovery under the written instrument (Bloom v. Kern, 30 La. Ann. 1263), and parol evidence could not have been received to prove any promise or guarantee of defendant to pay the debt (article 2278, Civil Code).

The exception was properly sustained and plaintiff’s suit dismissed. The judgment is affirmed.

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

WEBB, J.

In this action plaintiff sought to recover judgment against defendant as the guarantor of an open account due plaintiff by H. Oppenheimer, and plaintiff appealed from a ruling sustaining an exception of no cause of action and a judgment dismissing his suit.

Appellant has not made any appearance here. The written act evidencing the guarantee made the basis of the suit shows that the guarantee related to a specific lot of goods sold to Oppenheimer by plaintiff long prior to the date of the account for which defendant is sought to be held liable as guarantor. The guarantee was not a continuing guarantee and there could not be any recovery under the written instrument (Bloom v. Kern, 30 La. Ann. 1263), and parol evidence could not have been received to prove any promise or guarantee of defendant to pay the debt (article 2278, Civil Code).

The exception was properly sustained and plaintiff’s suit dismissed. The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 So. 493, 16 La. App. 140, 1931 La. App. LEXIS 469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/specialty-candy-co-v-davis-lactapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack