Union Bank v. Campbell

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Union Bank v. Campbell

2 La. Ann. 759

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedAugust 15, 1847

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2 La. Ann. 759 (Union Bank v. Campbell) 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

Union Bank v. Campbell, 2 La. Ann. 759 (La. 1847).

Pincite

Opinion

The judgment of the court was pronounced by

Slidell, J.

The defendant is sued as endorser of a promissory note, and the case turns upon the question of notice. At the time of the protest the defendant lived in the parish of St. Mary, and Franklin was the post-office nearest to his residence. The certificate of the notary declares,, “that the parties were duly notified óf the protest thereof by letteVs io them written and addressed, dated on the day of said protest, and served upon them respectively in the manner following, viz : by means of three written notices addressed to the drawer, J. Smith, and to the endorsers, James Campbell and James S. Norris, ail of the parish of St. Mary, Which three notices I have deposited in the post-office at St. Martinsville, and by leaving and furnishing the said cashier, Adrien Dumartrait, similar notices as those directed as aforesaid.” This certificate is insufficient to charge tire endorser. It does not show that the notice was addressed to any place. It certifies that the drawer and endorsers were “ all of the parish of St. Mary,”'but we are not permitted to infer from this that the notices were addressed “ parish of St..Mary.” In the absence of a statement of place, in the address of the letter, it would remain in the post-office at St. Martinsville, instead of being transmitted to Frankliii ; in other words, it would not reach tlie endorser. Judgment affirmed.

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

The judgment of the court was pronounced by

Slidell, J.

The defendant is sued as endorser of a promissory note, and the case turns upon the question of notice. At the time of the protest the defendant lived in the parish of St. Mary, and Franklin was the post-office nearest to his residence. The certificate of the notary declares,, “that the parties were duly notified óf the protest thereof by letteVs io them written and addressed, dated on the day of said protest, and served upon them respectively in the manner following, viz : by means of three written notices addressed to the drawer, J. Smith, and to the endorsers, James Campbell and James S. Norris, ail of the parish of St. Mary, Which three notices I have deposited in the post-office at St. Martinsville, and by leaving and furnishing the said cashier, Adrien Dumartrait, similar notices as those directed as aforesaid.” This certificate is insufficient to charge tire endorser. It does not show that the notice was addressed to any place. It certifies that the drawer and endorsers were “ all of the parish of St. Mary,”'but we are not permitted to infer from this that the notices were addressed “ parish of St..Mary.” In the absence of a statement of place, in the address of the letter, it would remain in the post-office at St. Martinsville, instead of being transmitted to Frankliii ; in other words, it would not reach tlie endorser. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 La. Ann. 759, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/union-bank-v-campbell-la-1847.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack