Case ID: la-ann_3/html/0121-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Slideli., J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Davis v. Bourgeat, Executor.
    Where the record of the certificate of notice to an endorser of the protest of a note appears to have been made in the presence of two witnesses, bat it does not appear that they signed it, the record not being in conformity to the statutes of 14 February, 1821, s. 1, and 13 March, 1827, s. 1, the certificate will not be proof of notice, and a certified copy of it should not be admitted in evidence.
    from the District Court of Pointe Coupée, Farrar, J.
    No counsel appeared for the platntiff.
    
      Cooley, for the appellant.
   The judgment of the court was pronounced by

Slideli., J.

The plaintiff has failed to prove notice of protest to the endorser. The record of the certificate of notice seems to have been made in the presence of two witnesses; but it does not appear that they signed it. Not being in conformity to the statute, the certificate was not proof of notice, and the certified copy of it should have been rejected. See statutes of 1821 and 1827. Gas Bank v. Nuttall, 19 La. 449. Deblieux v. Bullard, 1 Rob. Rep. 67.

It is decreed that the judgment of the court below be reversed, and that there be judgment for the defendant, as in case of non-suit, the plaintiff paying costs in both courts.