Case ID: la-ann_3/html/0641-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Kins, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Beck v. Hunter.
    In an action by one of two makers of a joint and several promissory note, who bad paid the whole amount in satisfaction of a judgment thereon obtained against him, to recover from his co-obligor one half of the amount so paid, a transcript of the record of the action against the former, to which the latter was not a party, is, in the absence of the original note, or of any evidence of its execution or consideration, insufficient to support the action.
    APPEAL from the District Court of Caddo, Olcott, J.
    
    
      Hodge, for the plaintiff.
    
      Young, for the appellant.
   The judgment of the court was pronounced by

Kins, J.

This action was commenced by an attachment against the defendant, who, it is alleged, resides out of the State. The plaintiff avers that lie and the defendant were the joint and several makers of a promissory note, given to one Beni, for work and labor done for the joint benefit of the two, and that a judgment was obtained against the plaintiff, for the amount of the note, which he subsequently satisfied. He prays for a judgment for one half of the sum thus paid. The defendant was represented by a curator appointed by the court, who pleaded, as an exception, that the defendant was not properly before the court, not having been cited, and not being the owner of the property attached ; and subsequently filed' an answer to the merits, in which he pleaded the general issue, averred that the judgment against the plaintiff had been obtained by collusion, and that the defendant was, at the inception of the present action, and still continued to be, a resident, of the State.

The only evidence adduced by the plaintiff in support of his demand was, a transcript of the record of Bent v. Beck & Hunter, to which'the defendant was not a party. The original note was- not produced, and no proof offered of its execution, nor of the consideration for which it was given. This testimony is insufficient to sustain the plaintiff’s demand.

The judgment of the District Court is, therefore, reversed, and judgment rendered against the plaintiff as in case of non-suit;- he paying the costs of both courts.