Case ID: la_6/html/0078-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Martin, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ROW vs. RICHARDSON ET AL.
    
    APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP THE SEVENTH DISTRICT, THE JUDGE OP THE DISTRICT PRESIDING.
    In an action on an obligation to deliver a certain quantity of cotton, where the plaintiff in an amended petition, alleged a promise made after the obligation had fallen due, to pay the amount in money; held proof of putting the defendant in moró, is unnecessary, and that plaintiff was entitled to recover on proof of the subsequent promise as alleged.
    The plaintiff sues William Richardson, Levi Guice, and John M’Cormick, on a joint and several obligation to pay three hundred dollars in all the month of January next-ensuing the date, payable in merchantable cotton at the market price, to be delivered in the town of Monroe. He alleges an amicable demand of the obligors, and refusal to comply with their obligation; wherefore he prays judgment for the sum of three hundred dollars with interest and costs.
    The defendants pleaded a general denial. On the trial Richardson and M’Cormick separated. There was a verdict and judgment against the first for the amount of the obligations and in favor of M’Cormick.
    
      In an action on an obligation to deliver a certain quantity of cotton wherethe plaintiff in an amended petition alleges a promise made after the obligation had fallen due to pay the amount in money; held proof of putting the defendant in mora, is unnecessary, and that plaintiff was entitled to recover on proof of the subsequent promise as alleged.
    The plaintiff moved for a new trial, which was overruled. Richardson appealed.
    The obligation was made by Richardson as principal, and signed by Guice and M’Cormick as sureties, and staked on a horse race and won by the plaintiff.
    The evidence showed that it was agreed among the parties, that another person was to have signed as surety, but who declined after Guice and M’Cormick signed.
    There was no evidence that the cotton was ever demanded, but it was in proof that M’Cormick, when pressed for payment, observed that he knew he was bound for the whole of the note, and expressed his willingness to pay his portion of it. On the trial the defendants introduced Guice, who had been released by a former verdict, to prove the want of consideration, and that the note was incomplete for wan-of all the signatures that were agreed on. The plaintiff excepted to the opinion of the court admitting this witness.
   Martin, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case was before us in the appeal of the plaintiff last year, who complained that judgment had not been given against Richardson, Sureties, & Co. defendants. Richardson now seeks the reversal of the judgment against him.

The suit was brought on an obligation to deliver a quantity of cotton, but the plaintiff in an amendéd petition alledged, that Richardson, after the cotton had become due, had promised to pay the debt in money. On the plea of the general issue the plaintiff had a verdict and judgment.

In this court the defendant’s counsel has contended that the plaintiff must fail here, because he failed to put the defendant en demeure by a legal demand; but the amended petition charges a promise to pay money, and this promise is proven, as well as the execution of the obligation.

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