Case ID: la-ann_19/html/0103-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Ibsi/ey, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 672.
    Henry L. Wolfe v. M. Poirier, J. N. Poirier and H. V. Babin.
    The Supreme Court will not dismiss an appeal on motion of appellant, without consent of appellee.
    Tt is not incumbent on plaintiff to prove the signatures of the drawer and first endorser oi a promissory note, when defendant is a subsociucnfcendorser; his transfer of the note by endorsement* admitted the validity of Ins title.
    A PPEAL from the District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, Posey, J
    
      J. A. Derussy, for plaintiff and appellee,
    
      li. W. Knickerbocker and J. M. MoGutchen, for defendant and appellant.
   Ibsi/ey, J.

The appellant has moved to dismiss'the appeal, on the ground that the debt sued for has been extinguished by the sale of the property of the drawer of the note sued on.

As the appellee has not consented to the dismissal or withdrawal by the appellant, this Court cannot maintain the motion of the appellant, which is overruled. C. P. Art. 901.

On the trial of the case, the endorsement of the defendant upon the note was proved, but the signature of the drawer and the endorsement of the payee were not shown to be genuine. This was not necessary, as the defendant, by transferring the note by endorsement, admitted the validity of his title to it.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the .District Court be affirmed, at the costs of the appellant.