Case ID: la_16/html/0276-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Martin /.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MAURIN & CO. vs. PEROT.
    APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE SIXTH DISTRICT, FOR THE PARISH "OF NATCHITOCHES, THE JUDGE OF THE FIFTH PRESIDING.
    A note payable at plaintiffs’ domicil, need not be formally presented for payment, especially when it is shown the defendant had no funds there.
    This is a suit against the maker of a promissory note. The signature was admitted, and a general denial pleaded.
    The note was payable at the plaintiffs’ domicil, and it was proved the defendant had no funds there to make payment. There ivas judgment against him, and he appealed.
    The case was submitted to the court.
   Martin /.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant is appellant from a judgment against him, on bis promissory note, payable at the plaintiffs’ domicil in New-Orleans. The answer admits his signature, but denies •that the plaintiffs have shown any cause of action.

The plaintiffs state in their petition, that on the maturity of the note, they examined their books, and ascertained that the defendant had no funds to his credit.

The defendant failed to answer interrogatories propounded to him, requiring him to state, whether he had any funds in the hands of the plaintiffs at the maturity of the note or not, and they were taken for confessed.

' Judgment was, in our opinion, properly rendered against the defendant, and damages are asked.

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