Case ID: la_11/html/0487-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Carleton, J.,\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

OAKEY ET AL. vs. BEAUVAIS.
    Eastern Dist.
    
      Jan. 1838.
    APPEAL PROM THE COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT FOR THE PARISH OF POINT COUPEE, THE JUDGE OF THE SECOND PRESIDING.
    Demand of payment must be made personally, or at the domicil of the drawer of a note, in order to bind the endorser, when no particular place is designated for payment.
    It will not suffice, on the notary’s being told, that the drawer had removed or lived in another parish, to refrain from any further demand, and merely to notify the endorser of the non-payment of the note. In such a case the endorser is released.
    This is an action against the endorser of two promissory notes. On the 30th January, 1835, F. A. Blanc, of New-Orleans, executed his 'two notes for seven hundred, dollars each, payable to A. Beauvais, or order, six months after date, and by him endorsed to S. W. Oakey & Co., the present plaintiffs. The notes were discounted in the bank of Louisiana, and at maturity protested for non-payment. The holders now pray for judgment against the endorser, who is sued at his domicil in the parish of Point Coupee. The defendant pleaded a. general denial, and deuied expressly that demand of payment was ever made of the drawer, and that he is not liable as endorser. He prays that the plaintiffs’ demand be rejected.
    Upon these pleadings and issues the cause was tried.
    The evidence showed that the drawer of the note resided in New-Orleans, but was absent at the time the notes became due, and returned about two months afterwards. The notary states in his protest, “ that he made diligent inquiry for the drawer of said note-, in order to demand payment, and was informed that he, resides in Point Coupee, and was not present in the city, whereupon he protested, etc.”
    The district judge gave judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiffs appealed. /
    
      Slidell, for the plaintiffs,
    contended, that the judgment of the District Court was contrary to law and the evidence of the case. From the evidence ■ and the information given to the notary, the drawer had removed from this parish, and there was an impossibility of making a demand on him.
    Mitchell, for the defendant,
    insisted, that the endorser was not liable in this case. The note had never been presented to the drawer for payment; and no demand of payment having been made of the drawer, the endorser is discharged. Session diets of 1827, page 76, section 2, 3. Chitty on Bills, (ed. 1817) 260, 261, 267, 268. 2 Phillips on Evidence, page 17, 18. 2 Starkie 259, and notes. 12 Martin 177. 3 Marlin, JV. S., 610.
    
      Demand of payment must be made personally, or at the domicil of the drawer of anote, in order to bind the endorser* when no particular place is designated for payment.
    It will not suffice on the notary’s being told that the drawer had removed or lived in another parish, to refrain from any farther demand, and merely to notify the endorser of the non-payment of the note. In such a case the endorser is released.
   Carleton, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This action is brought on two promissory notes against the endorser, who sets up for defence, that no demand was made upon the drawer at the maturity of the notes. The court sustained the plea, and gave judgment for defendant. The plaintiffs appealed. The cause was submitted to this court without argument. .

The notes were executed and dated at New-Orleans, discounted in the bank of Louisiana, and taken up by the plaintiffs. The notary who protested them, being told that the maker lived at Point Coupée, made no further effort in search of him, but gave notice of non-payment by post, to the defendant.

The' testimony fully shows, that Blanc, the maker, had his fixed domicil in New-Orleans, but left the city in March or April, 1835, passed several months at Point Coupée, and returned home in October of the same year.

There can be no doubt that the demand of payment ought to have been made personally of the maker, or at his domicil in New-Orleans ; none such having been made, no liability can attach to the endorser.

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