Louisiana Reports; Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Louisiana Volume 36

Louisiana Reports; Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Louisiana Volume 36

By (author) 

List price: US$15.45

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1841 edition. Excerpt: ... proved, and thus make it necessary to send another commission to dbtain evidence of it. 2. It is contended, the depositions of all the witnesses ought tlo be rejected, because a mistake has been made in the name ofone of them. We know of no law requiring or authorizing it; and as the depositions of two of the witnesses are properly taken, and they prove enough to sustain the judgment, we deem it unnecessary, to decide upon the deposition of the third witness. O 3. It is said the depositions are not properly authenticated, as the certificate of the commissioner is on a separate piece of paper. That is true; but it is attached with a wafer to the depositions, and returned with them, and presented to the court at the same time. That is a suflicient compliance with the law. 4. It is said the plaintiff has not shown a title to the note. The defendant has not impeached his primafacie right of possession, and if he had, the evidence is very suflicient to show the note belongs to the plaintifl'. Two witnesses swear to the signatures of all the endorsers except the first, and the defendant having permitted the note and protest to be read as evidence, without objection upon that point, it is too late to question it now. ' So far from seeing any thing that requires us-to disturb the judgment, we should have felt ourselves bound to give damages for a frivolous appeal, if it were not that the case comes up at a time when the court was examining its previous opinions, relative to the erasing of special endorsements. Thejudgment of the District Court is, therefore, affirmed, with costs. I-'ILHIOL'S HEIRS U8. HEMPKIN, ADMINISTRATOR. APPEAL ritoii was count OF raoiiA'ri' s, Ion run PARISH or OUACHITA. Opponents of a deceased...show more

Product details

  • Paperback | 218 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 12mm | 399g
  • Rarebooksclub.com
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236824334
  • 9781236824332