Case Name: FARMERS' NAT. BANK OF LEBANON, KY., v. BELLE ALLIANCE CO., Limited
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1917-11-26
Citations: 142 La. 538
Docket Number: No. 21041
Parties: FARMERS’ NAT. BANK OF LEBANON, KY., v. BELLE ALLIANCE CO., Limited.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 142
Pages: 537–539

Head Matter:
(77 South. 144)
No. 21041.
FARMERS’ NAT. BANK OF LEBANON, KY., v. BELLE ALLIANCE CO., Limited.
(Nov. 26, 1917.)
(Syllabus by the Court.)
1. Novation <&wkey;4 — Vendor and Purchaser, <&wkey;266 (6) — Execution of Renewal Note-Privilege.
Executing a new note in renewal of an old one does not novate the original debt or destroy the privilege securing the same.
[Ed. Note. — For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Novationj
(Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
2. Interest <@=337 — Judgment.
■ A judgment on notes, silent as to interest, awarding 6 per cent, interest, was erroneous, and would be amended by reducing the rate of interest to 5 per cent.
Appeal from Twenty-Seventh Judicial District Court, Parish of Assumption; Charles T. Wortham, Judge.
Action by the Farmers’ National Bank of Lebanon, Ky., against Belle Alliance Gcrnpa ny, Limited. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Beattie & Beattie, of Thibodaux, for appellant. Pugh & Lemann, of . Donaldson-ville, for appellee.

Opinion:
LEOHE, J.
In the month of February, 1912, defendant bought 17 mules, and, in representation of part of the purchase price thereof, it executed its note due December 12, 1912. Unable to take up its note at maturity, it then executed two other notes in renewal thereof, one for the sum of $1,379.35 due December 12, 1913, and the other for the sum of $1,383.24 due December 30, 1913. The holder and owner of the notes, who had sold the mules, transferred the notes by indorsement to the plaintiff bank, now suing to recover the amount thereof and for recognition of its vendor's lien and privilege on the mules.
The principal, and in fact the only serious, defense is that the original claim was novated when the vendor of the muías accepted new notes, and therefore that the vendor's privilege was lost. The record also contains a bill of exception, taken by defendant, to a ruling of the judge compelling it to go to trial, over its objection that the case had not been properly or regularly fixed. Defendant's objection seems to be based upon some supposed rule of the court which is not in evidence. This bill is not urged in defendant's brief, and we seet no reason to reverse the trial judge's ruling thereon.
'The defense of novation is not supp rted by the evidence. The Code defines "novation" as a contract, consisting of two stipulations ; one to extinguish an existing obligation, the other to substitute a new one in its place. C. C. 2185. Novation is never presumed. C. O. 2190.
Executing a new note in renewal of an old one does not novate the original debt or destroy the privilege securing the same. Davis v. Welch, 128 La. 792, 55 South. 372; Varnado v. Thompson, 129 La. 19, 55 South. 693.
The judgment appealed from is in accord with these views, but it contains error in awarding interest to plaintiff at the rate of 6 per cent, on notes which are silent as to interest. It is therefore ordered that the judgment appealed from be amended by reducing the rate of interest therein to 5 per cent., and, as thus amended, that it be affirmed at the cost of plaintiff and appellee.