Case ID: la-ann_22/html/0409-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Ltjdeling, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 2581.
    John S. Seely v. O. L. Blanchard et al.
    Defendant purchased slaves at succession sale, for which he gave his promissory notes; at their maturity plaintiff loaned defendant a sufficient amount to pay them, for which defendant gave his note; defendant applied the money, thus obtained, to the payment of the original notes for the purchase of the slaves; plaintiff brings suit on the note, to which the defendant opposes the plea of a slave consideration. The evidence shows that the consideration of the last note was loaned money: Held — That the plaintiff must recover; that the fact that defendant applied the money loaned to the payment of the slave notes, did not entitle him to the benefit of the plea of a void consideration.
    APPEAL from Third District Court, parish of Lafourche. Train, J.
    
      Bush <& Goode, for plaintiff and appellee. Belcher & Beattie, for defendants and appellants.
   Ltjdeling, C. J.

This suit is instituted on a promissory note. The defense is, that the consideration of the note has failed, being the prico of slaves.

The evidence in the record shows that one of the defendants bought slaves at the sale of the property of the succession of John L. Seely,, and for the price they gave three notes’in favor of John S. Seely,administrator, dated March 3, 1859; that after the notes matured the defendants, not being able to pay them, made an agreement whereby the plaintiff (who was the administrator of the succession of J. L. Seely) paid the said three notes; and the defendants executed the note in suit for the money advanced for their benefit by the plaintiff, and the three notes given to the succession were delivered to the defendants. The plaintiff swears positively that the note sued on was given for money loaned by him to defendants. The evidence sustains the judgment of the district court.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment of the district court be affirmed, with costs of appeal.

Rehearing refused.