Case ID: la-ann_5/html/0303-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Slidell, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose Pi v. Manuel Vidal.
    In an action on a promissory note evidence will not be received in support of a plea in reconvention not necessarily connected with the original demand, or in support of a plea in compensation where the sum is not alleged to have been liquidatsd.
    APPEAL from the Fifth District Court of New Orleans, Buchanan, J.
    
      Z. Latour, for plaintiff.
    
      J. M. Wolf, for defendant.
   The judgment of the court was pronounced by

Slidell, J.

This suit is upon the defendant’s promissory note. The court did not err in refusing to hear evidence under the pleas of reconvention and compensation. The demand in reconvention, as pleaded, was not “ necessarily connected with the main action and incidental to the samenor was the claim pleaded in compensation alleged to be liquidated. See C. P. 375. Lacoste v. Bordue, 7 N. S. 517. C. C. 2205.

The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed, with costs-