Case ID: la_17/html/0352-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Smosr, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Pritchard v. Forgay.
    Where it is proved the note was protested and due notice given to the defendant, who is sued as in dorser, the appeal will be considered as only for delay, and the judgmenthe affirmed with the maximum of damages. — 3 L. 101, and cases there noted. »
    Appeal from the commercial court of New Orleans.
    This is a suit against the indorser of a pi-omissory note.
    The defendant admitted his signature and pleaded the genex’al issue. It was proved that the note was duly protested for non-payment, and pex'sonal notice given to the defendant. From judgment against him he appealed.
    Larue, for plaintiff,
    insisted on the affirmance of judgment with ten per cent, damages.
   Smosr, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a suit against several indorsers of a promissory note duly protested for non-payment. The defendant, Forgay, admitted his signature and pleaded the general issue; there was judgment against him in the court below, and he appealed.

The certificate of the notary proves that the protest of the note was regularly notified to the indorsers, and that notice of its dishonor was delivered to the defendant, Forgay, personally. It is evident that this appeal wSs taken for delay, and the damages prayed for by the appellee must, therefore, be allowed.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the commercial court be affirmed with ten per cent, damages on the amount of the note sued on, and costs in both courts.