Case Name: L. D. Dalcour vs. C. P. McCan et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1885-01
Citations: 37 La. Ann. 7
Docket Number: No. 9253
Parties: L. D. Dalcour vs. C. P. McCan et al.
Judges: Chief Justice Bermudez and Justice Todd dissenting.
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 37
Pages: 7–13

Head Matter:
No. 9253.
L. D. Dalcour vs. C. P. McCan et al.
Where two defendants wore jointly sued for a claim exceeding two thousand dollars and judgment was rendered as prayed, and only one appeals, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction, although the appellant is liable only for one-half and that half is less than the appealable sura.
The holder by transfer of tickets, consisting of paste-boards bearing no date and no promise to pay, but figures calling for an amount of money, issued to plantation laborers for labor, issued by one of the partners without the knowledge or consent of his co-partner, cannot-recover against the latter, in default of proof of actual indebtedness by the partnership to such of his transferrors, and of a bona fide transfer from the original creditor to him.
Labor tickets, thus issued, are not written evidences of indebtedness, binding on the alleged debtor, and the indebtedness of the planter must be proved by competent evidence.
APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Monroe, J.
B. T. Beauregard and H. GhiapeJla for Plaintiff and Appellee.
Assignment of an incorporeal right may be made verbally. All verbal contracts are valid, unless expressly required to be reduced to writiug. Succession of Delassize. 8 Rob. 260 ; Hughes vs. Harri-mii et- al., 2 La. 80-92; Gray vs. Trafton, 12 M. 702.
In the transfer of credits, rights or claims to a third person, the delivery takes place between the transferrer and transferee by the giving of the tibio. R. C. 0 . 2642.
The tradition of incorporeal rights is to be made eilber by the delivery of tbe titles and of the act of transfer, or by the use made by the purchaser, with the consent of the seller. R. O. G. 2481.
Rotice to the debtor is only required as to third persons. 30 A. 386, Pinard vs. G eorge; R C. C. 2643.
Where one, by bis words or conduct, wilfully causes another to believe in the existence of a certain state of things, and induces him to act on that belief, so as to alter bis own previous position, tbe former is concluded from averring against The latter a different state of things as existing at the same time, hlarshvs. Smith, 5 Rob. 523, and authorities there cited; Bigelow on Estoppel, p. 473.
When there is no agreement respecting administration in the act of partnership, the partners are supposed to give reciprocally to each other the power of administering one for the other. What one does is valid even for the share of Ms partners without receiving their approbation. " * * every partner has a right to bind his partners to contribute with him to the expenses which arenecessary forthepreservation oftlie things of the partnership. * '* + R. C. C. 2870.
A partner cannot plead ignorance of the acts of his co partner, nor of his business manager, when acting within thé scope of his authority. 6 R. 97; 3 R. 256; 1 A. 432 ; 5 A. 532.
In an ordinary partnership, if one partner contracts without authority from the other, and the partnership is benefited, all partners will be bound jointly. Lagan vs. Oragin, 27 A. 353; R. C- C- 2874.
Bouse & Grant for Defendant and Appellant.
A memorandum, such as the so-called laborer’s ticket sued on in this case, having no date, containing no promise to pay a sum certain to any particular person-, at & time certain, is not a note or hill, negotiable under the law merchant, nor is it assignable by delivery. Story on Promissory Rotes, pp. 1.16. 19.
Proof cannot be received to create a note out of such memorandum, where the ambiguity is thus patent. Peake’s Evidence, Chap. 2, § 5 ; Turnbull vs. Cureton, 9 M. O. S. 39.
A note or bill made by an agent, in his own name, does not hind the undisclosed principal. Daniels vs. Burnham, 2 L. 243; Cragin vs. Lovell, 111 D. S. 194.
One joint owner of a plantation cannot hind the other by any contract made, either in his own name, or that of the agricultural partnership, unless it be made by the managing partuer pursuant to special powers conferred by the articles of partnership, which have been duly recorded, or unless it be shown that the partnership has been benefited thereby. C. C. 2872-4, 2875.
In such cases, the burden of proof of authority: and of the consideration, rests upon tlie plaintiff. Dumatrait vs. Gay, 1 R. 62.
Payment of one of several unauthorized contracts, does not stop a defendant from disputing the others. Ibid.
A managing partner who has not special authority, cannot bind the firm by an agreement to pay the debt of a third person.
Nor is parol evidence admissible to prove such an agreement. R. S. § 1443; Merz vs. Labuzan, 23 A. 747; Levy vs. Dubois, 24 A. 401.
Delivery of a memorandum of an account does not operate as an assignment of tlie account to the holder of the memorandum.
A creditor who has disabled himself from producing the obligations sued on, by delivering them to a third person and taking his individual receipt for them, cannoc show the amount due on them by parol evidence. Adams vs. Gaynard, 5 N, S. 249
The superior evidence must have been lost or destroyed without the fault of the creditor, to entitle him to offer inferior. Stockdalevs. Escaut,4M. 564.
And the defendant, if the evidence is supposed to be in his possession, must have been called upon to produce it. Erwin vs. Porter, 8 N. S. 167,388; Williams vs. Benton, 12 A. 91.
Where tbe amount of any obligation to pay money is expressed, in figures, proof must be made that it was given for the amount so expressed. R. S. § 1458.
Obligations issued to be used as money, for a less sum than five dollars each, are null and void under Section 887 of the Revised Statutes, which forbids any person to make or receive them under pain of a penalty of twenty-five dollars.
The giving of a receipt for this class of prohibited paper, or creating a new obligation based upon them, does not relieve the transaction of the taint of illegality. Cotton vs. Brien, 6 R. 115; Davidson vs. Lanier. 4 Wallace, 447; Brown vs. Tarkington, 3 Wallace, 337; Boutner vs. Yarborough, 12 A. 249.
The illegality of a part of a transaction taints the whole, and Courts of justice will not adjust the balance of profit and loss between joint adventurers in iniquity Chatter vs. Becket, 7Teun. R. 201; Bird vs. Appleton, 8 Tenn. R. 062; John DeBersti vs. Paige, 36 N. Y. 537; Pettit vs. Pettit, 32 Alabama, 288; Collins vs. Murrell, 2 Metcalf (Ky.), 163.
It is only when the party seeking to enforce the illegal agreement, is n’ot himself a wrongdoer, that courts will separate the good from the had. Bank etal. vs. King, 44 N. Y. 87.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
The opinion, of the Court was delivered by
Manning, J.
The prayer of the plaintiff is that the two defendants be jointly condemned to pay him $2,480.85. Judgment was rendered as prayed, and a remittance of a small sum having been made, the judgment was reduced to $2,425. M'Can alone appeals.
The motion to dismiss is on the ground that the judgment being' against two defendants jointly, one of whom is content therewith, the amount in dispute quoad the appellant- is only $1,212.50.
It is true that each defendant is liable for one-half of the'demand alone but the whole is in dispute. Each item of the whole is contested in order to reduce the amount or altogether extinguish it. If the judgment had rejected the whole, the plaintiff could unquestionably have appealed. His demand was for over two thousand dollars. He must prove the whole in order to obtain a judgment for any part against the appellant.
The judgment that we should render, if we agreed with the lower Court, would be for $2,425, although the appellant could only be held to pay one half of it. Suppose one of the defendants fiad confessed judgment, the examination of the case as to the other involves the examination of the whole claim. The point"has been ruled several times adversely to the mover. Lartigue v. White, 25 Ann. 291 and 325; State ex rel. Sc. Bd. v. Cousin, 31 Ann. 297; State ex rel. St. Cyr. v. Jumel, 34 Ann. 201.
The motion is refused.
Chief Justice Bermudez and Justice Todd dissenting.