Case ID: la_12/html/0588-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": ". Carleton, J.,\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LAFERRIERE vs. WELLS.
    Western Dist.
    
      Oct. 1838.
    APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, FOR THE PARISH OE RAPIDES, TIIE JUDGE OF THE SEVENTH PRESIDING.
    It is a sufficient allegation, «that due and lawful demand of payment was made, without effect,” with the note and protest annexed, making part of the petition, to let in proof of the demand, and failure to pay.
    This is an action against the maker of a promissory note, payable at the counting house of Thomas Barrett & Co., in New-Orleans.
    The plaintiff alleges, that by the note and protest annexed, and making part of the petition, “due and lawful demand of payment hath been made without effect.” He prays for judgment. The defendants excepted, pleaded a general denial, and averred that the note was made payable at the counting house of Thomas Baiyett & Co., and that no demand was made there ; and that it is not alleged in the petition, that said demand was made at the place designated. They pray that the plaintiff’s demand be rejected.
    . If; ‘if a “that due and of^payment'was w¡thhthe note and protest ¡ng part o™the if®of de-mainland failure ° pay‘
    There was judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendants appealed.
    
      Winn and Brent, for the plaintiff.
    
      Dunbar, contra.
    
   . Carleton, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The petitioner alleges, that the note on which the suit is brought, is made payable at the counting house of Thomas Barrett & Co., at the city of New-Orleans, and “ that due and lawful demand of payment was made without effect.”

The defendants put in a similar plea to that in the case of Laferriere vs. Bynum et al., which this court has just decided, and took a like bill of exceptions to the introduction of testimony to prove the demand, which being overruled by the court, there was judgment against them and they appealed.

This case cannot be distinguished in principle from that above cited, wherefore, our judgment must be the same.

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