New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-02-15
COURT RECORD.
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY IA, 1874.
Superior District Court.

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY IA, 1874.
Superior District Court.
The four cases begun last summer by the
State against Warmoth, Dubuclet, ct al
Anderson, ct al, and Hernandez ct al. and
which made some stir by reason of the pub
LEGATION of the petitions in the newspapers,
have been argued during the last week by
Judge Howe, for defense and Messrs. Eel
loves and Cotton for the State. In the case
of the State vs.. Dubuclet ct al. concerning
$4,000, proceeds of sale of Jackson rail
road stock, the exceptions of Warmoth were
sustained and the suit dismissed. The
other cases were taken under advisement
fifth Diserics Court.
Judge Cullom has rendered the following
decision:
No. 400. 3. II. Davis vs. J. d. KentoD.-
The plaintiff sues on four promissory notes
drawn by J. ID. Taylor, payable TO the order
of }. ID. Kenton, and by him Endorsed,
amounting aggregately TO the sum of $40.
They draw interest at the rate of eight per
cent from maturity. The defendant an
swers that the notes were given for the rent
of certain premises, and made payable to
him for the sole purpose of making him Sc
curlty for the payment of them; that the
premises leased were sold at sheriff's sale.
and with them the lease itself; that the
drawer. Taylor, has since the sale paid the
rent punctually to the purchaser; that the
present plaintiff was aware of the fact that
he, Taylor, denied any indebtedness on &C.
count of said notes, and also that they
were not negotiable; that he purchased
them after the sale, knowing that the con.
sideratiOn had failed.
The proof is that the consideration did
fail rs TO the original lessor, Melone. In
the meantime he had sold the notes very
shortly after they were executed, to persons
who acted in good faith.
Full value was given for them. They
read as follows:
1850. New Orleans, October II. 1871.
On the last day of June. 1872, promise TO
pay to che order Of j. y. KentOn, No. SO
Camp street. 500, payable at the office Of
Svarbrick Il Co.. value received, with eight
per cent interest after maturity, being for
rent Of the frame cottage dwelling, No. AIS
Constance street, for June, 1872. But
should the lessee be deprived OF the use of
the property by casualty. then the note
shall become entitled 90 credit for the
only. j. d. TAYLOR"
1ndorsed: J. D. Kenton and II. Melone.
Printed, mot negotiable."l
Melone sold these notes early in October.
1871. When he sold them to the plaintiffs
transferree he Endorsed them.
The principal question raised by the de.
PENDANT is that inasmuch as the words mot |
negotiable" we're printed across the end Of
hem, the fact that they were so in all that !
pertains to phraseOlOgy, did notrender them |
negotiable. can not assent to this PROPOSE |
ion. They are in form negotiable. There !
s nothing in them 70 initiate against their |
The words mot negotiable
re not in the form of them, and if they
we're, would make no difference in the nature
f the obligation. For being in direct con- |
radiction Of the essential phraseology, the
litigation would be construed in favor of |
commerce, and most vigorously against the
bllgOr. 1t can not for one moment be |
onceded that, although they state that
promise to pay to the order Of j. ID.
1enton," yet that they are mot negOtia.
le." even if these words were written
the notes themselves. This principle
as already been passed upon. ''Where A
lgned note with these words: Borrowed (
j. 5. go. which promise not to pay it
as held to be good promissory note, and |
lat the word not ought to be rejected"
20 Story on Prom. Notes, s. IL. The words :
1ot negotiable" can not be regarded as a |
art OF the note. and should therefore be 9
Gated as mere me mOrandum, to serve a
lrpOse as between the original parties,
1t the contingency upon which the notes 7
light have been avoided. as between them. {
as not apparent upon the face of them. |
I'd is therefore not such as to affect third :
rsons. Sadler VS.. White. "a An, III,
ne notes were negotiable in every respect. S
d the simple marginal printing of the n
,rds mot negotiable did not alter their 3
aracter. The most liberal meaning these
'rds can be interpreted TO convey is a.
at the payee promised not to transfer il
EN-. But in the absence of any other cl
erative. cause, third persons could not be y,
ected by such an understanding New ! h
leans Canal Company vs. Howard. ) A, u,
!. The next point is that Davis became st
owner OF the notes, knowing that the II
,sideration had failed. The evidence st
~ establishes the fact. Now, although or
transierror had acquired them without at at
Ice, tor valuable consideration. and be. 10 10
Q maturity. almost Immediately after =
If issuance. and before the failure of con. be
GRAFTON. can Davis, who purchased after tn
sale OF the property, and after the lease tn
terminated, be regarded as a pur. 81
ser in good faith, and without wi
ice! i think not. The evidence E 1o5
VS. that he knew Taylor did not in pe
ognize any further Indebtedness to his i
'lnai lessor Melone. ithat Taylor was Ing
ge. by virtue of that sale (which in. us
led also the lease) to pay rent to the 'o'
;. purchaser. That the honorable the
q District Court of this city, in No. Ste
!, entitled N. Cornibe vs. j. ID. TAYLOR. Arr
uecreed and condemned said TAYLOR TO All
these lease notes to said Cornibe.
IS was made party to these proceed. Gle
and tailed to establish his right as now Gle
Up. g.,
) give Davis a Judgment now would be San
i've him all the advantages allowed by ~,
nercial usage and judicial precedent to moo
hasers without notice. This can not be ion
}. Louisiana State BanA ys. Sewall. III r
; Bush vs.. Wright, 10 Rob. %. aga a
n, "eiohoo "ust prevail, fesefVlng last
tlfs recourse against his transterror. T
First District Court. an an
tie vs. Sarah Gordon Carving con. s Sa'
=, II M1. s; sentenced 10 one day ID cres
Fourth District Cours. aga
ige Lynch has rendered the following a aGT
ion: 81
liam Green vs.. Jacob Eaton & Co. bale
tiff ALLEGES a cnptraor of S2tt ,. .. veal
sugar from the crop OF the Ivanhoe mar
dtlon. beSan WORK october 10, 1872 | ing.
made l53 hogsheads. Twenty barrels prin
GLASSES have been brought into the he M
LECTION Of this court. Defense except | half
; jurisdiction, and denies the standard | prn
gar claimed, and alleges a debt of sold
Tiff If S6I 30 The a,;,ts.ao " 1 strit
y, but it appears the plaintiff was in. and
ed with, contrary to the terms of the orde
act. He admits credit of $50, The cont COZ
SO admits a deduction of $45. Other . wv =
pancies are noticed at length. and a low
lent rendered for 1866 81. the recon. ira a
NAL demand being dismissed. and
rs at
Vharla II inf