Case Name: MAURIN vs. CHAMBERS
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1840-10
Citations: 16 La. 212
Docket Number: 
Parties: MAURIN vs. CHAMBERS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 16
Pages: 212–213

Head Matter:
MAURIN vs. CHAMBERS.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE SIXTH DISTRICT, FOR THE PARISH OF RAPIDES, JUDGE KING OF THE FIFTH DISTRICT PRESIDING.
Case remanded to admit evidence of the consideration of the notes, and that the makers of them were in danger of eviction from the land for which the notes were given.
This is an action against the defendant, as maker of a promissory note, payable to the order of A. P. Williams, and by him endorsed in blank. It expresses on its face to be given in part payment “of a tract of land of one thousand three hundred and sixty arpents, this day purchased of Gerard and Francois Chretien.”
It was also endorsed : “ Passé a Vordre de Mr. Antoine Maurin, sans recours.”
This caséis exactly similar to that of Maurin vs. Chambers and Williams, just decided, and turns upon the same evidence and legal questions raised. There was judgment for the plaintiff) and the defendant appealed.
Brent, for the plaintiff.
Gen. Thomas, Iiyams and Dunbar, for the defendant.

Opinion:
Martini.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a suit against the defendant alone, as the maker of a promissory note, payable to A. P. Williams, and by him endorsed in blank. It, is then endorsed by G. Chretien to the plaintiff, without recourse. The note expresses on its face that it was given in part, payment of a Iract of land, which the defendant had purchased from the Chretiens. The defence is that the purchasers are sued, and are in danger of eviction ; the suit still pending. Evidence to show the pendency óf the suit for eviction and deed of sale for the land, was rejected b}f the court below, and from judgment rendered against him, (he defendant appealed.
The facts of this case, and the principles of law upon which it turns, are the same as those in the case of Maurin vs. Chambers and Williams, just decided, and the same judgment must be rendered in both cases.
It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be annulled, avoided and reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings, with directions to the judge a quo to admit in evidence the documents mentioned in the bills of exception; the plaintiff and appellee paying the costs of the appeal.