Case Name: LACOSTE vs. DE ARMAS
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1831-03
Citations: 2 La. 263
Docket Number: 
Parties: LACOSTE vs. DE ARMAS
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 263–265

Head Matter:
LACOSTE vs. DE ARMAS
APPEAL PROM THE COURT OF THE FOURTH DISTRICT, THE JUDGE OP THE THIRD PRESIDING.
A party in interest may convey his legal title in a note to a third person, and by such conveyance, giye that person a right to sue in his own name. In such a case, the defendant may offer every defence to fee suit, by the agent, which he coilid present against the action of the principal. The agent can only be considered as the nominal plaintiff.
Suit by the indorsee, against the maker of a promissory note, who pleaded a want of consideration, and that the plaintiff had no interest in the note.
In support of the defence, interrogations were put to the plaintiff, who answered: that he was not the real owner of u > the note, but that it belonged to the trustees of the college 0f Bardstown, for whose interest, and by whose orders the suit was instituted. There was judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.
Eastern District
March 1831.
Cuvillier, for appellant, made the following points:
1. An action can only be brought by one having a real and actual interest, which he pursues, but as soon as that, interest arise, he may bring his action. — C. P. art. 19.
2. An action is the right given to every person to claim judicially what is due or belongs to him. — C. P. art. 1st.
Burke, for appellee.

Opinion:
Porter, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an action by the endorsee of a promissory note against the maker. The defence is, that the note was given without consideration, and that the plaintiff is the agent of the payee. The court below .gave judgment against the defendant, and he appealed.
There are two bills of exceptions on record, to the opinion of the court, refusing the defendant the right to make this defence, but as he was finally permitted to do so by a supplemental answer, and the cause comes up on its merits, we find it unnecessary to notice the opinions of the court to which these exceptions were taken.
The answer of the plaintiff to the interrogatories, admits that he is only agent for the payee, or rather for those persons for whose use the note was given to the payee ; and it is contended on the authority of the 15th article of the Code of Practice, that the action cannot be maintained in the form in which it is brought.
That article is in these words : " An action can only be brought by one, having a real and actual interest which he pursues, but as soon as that interest arise he may bring his action."
A party in interest may convey his legal title in a note to a third person, and by such conveyance . give that person a right to sue in his own panie. In such a case, the defendant may offer every defence to the suit, by the agent, which he could present againstthe action of the principal. The agent can only be considered as the nominal plaintiff.
It appears to us, that there is nothing in the enactment which prevents the party in interest, from conveying his legal title to a third person, and by such conveyance, giving that person a right to sue in his own name. No consequence results from it affecting the right of the defendant, for he can offer every defence to the suit of the agent he could present against the action of the principal. The agent can only be considered as the nominal plaintiff.
On the merits. The proof fails to sustain the allegation of a want of consideration; and it is, therefore, ordered, adjudged, and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed with costs.