Case Name: Robt. J. Halley v. Michael Hoeffner
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1867-12
Citations: 19 La. Ann. 518
Docket Number: No. 1071
Parties: Robt. J. Halley v. Michael Hoeffner.
Judges: Justices Ilsley and Labatjve dissenting.
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 19
Pages: 518–519

Head Matter:
No. 1071.
Robt. J. Halley v. Michael Hoeffner.
The doctrine in the case of Wainwriglit v. Bridges, (ante page 234) reaffirmed.
A PPEAL from the Fifth District Court of New Orleans, Leaumont,- J.
J. M. Dirrhammer, for plaintiff and appellant.
Race, Foster & E. T. Merriclc, for defendant and appellee.
Brief of Race, Foster & F. T. Merrick, for defendant and appellee.
—On the 6th day of June, 1861, the plaintiff sold a negro woman, Phillis, and her three children to defendant for the sum of $1,800, payable $800 in cash and balance at twelve months, for note of defendant secured by mortgage on the property conveyed. See act of sale, pages 12 and 13.
This suit is brought by the vendor of the once four slaves, against the purchaser on that mortgage note of $1,000, to enforce its payment. See petition, answer p. 7, el seq., the note, p. 3, and act of mortgage p. 12.
The defence is, the want and failure of the consideration of the note, by reason of the emancipation of all slaves, etc. Answer, p. 7, et seq.
The case was submitted to a jury, with a strong charge from his honor, the Judge presiding, in favor of the plaintiff’s right to recover, etc., and notwithstanding this, a verdict was rendered in favor of defendant, on which judgment was rendered in his favor, from which' plaintiff has taken this appeal.
This verdict was rendered on the 25th day of May, 1866, and is believed to have been the first in this State, invalidating notes given for slave property.
After the numerous decisions of this question by this Honorable Court, adversely to the pretensions of the plaintiff and appellant, counsel will content themselves by referring to the case of Wainwrighl, Administrator, v. Alice F. Bridges, et als., decided in May last, and to the subsequent cases.

Opinion:
Howell, J.
This is a suit on a promissory note, which, it is alleged and shown in the defence, was given in part payment of the price of slaves, and is governed by the doctrine settled in the case of Wainwright v. Bridges, and for the reasons therein assigned the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Justices Ilsley and Labatjve dissenting.