Stoltz v. Michel

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Stoltz v. Michel

121 So. 673, 10 La. App. 346, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 519

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedApril 1, 1929

DocketNo. 11,331

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 121 So. 673 (Stoltz v. Michel) 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

Stoltz v. Michel, 121 So. 673, 10 La. App. 346, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 519 (La. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

JONES, J.

This is a suit on a promissory note for $200.00, with interest thereon at eight per cent from September 15, 1927, until paid.

The defense is want of consideration. The trial court gave judgment as prayed for and defendant has appealed.

The evidence shows that plaintiff had a sixty-day contract to sell certain real estate for defendant for $35,000.00 on a four per cent commission; that defendant, thinking another agent could sell the real estate in a shorter time and wishing to save the [347]*347payment to plaintiff of $700.00, to which he would have been entitled if the second agent had made the sale, compromised with plaintiff by giving him this note. When the note was given plaintiff destroyed his contract for the sale of the real estate.

Clearly there was adequate consideration for the note.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

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

JONES, J.

This is a suit on a promissory note for $200.00, with interest thereon at eight per cent from September 15, 1927, until paid.

The defense is want of consideration. The trial court gave judgment as prayed for and defendant has appealed.

The evidence shows that plaintiff had a sixty-day contract to sell certain real estate for defendant for $35,000.00 on a four per cent commission; that defendant, thinking another agent could sell the real estate in a shorter time and wishing to save the [347]*347payment to plaintiff of $700.00, to which he would have been entitled if the second agent had made the sale, compromised with plaintiff by giving him this note. When the note was given plaintiff destroyed his contract for the sale of the real estate.

Clearly there was adequate consideration for the note.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 So. 673, 10 La. App. 346, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stoltz-v-michel-lactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack