Case Name: GOMEZ vs. RAMOS
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1831-05
Citations: 2 La. 426
Docket Number: 
Parties: GOMEZ vs. RAMOS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 426–426

Head Matter:
GOMEZ vs. RAMOS.
APPEAR FROM THE COURT OF THE PARISH AND CITY OF NEW-ORLEANS.
Eastern District,
May 1831.
Where three individuals composed a partnership in a bakery, and two of them by a written document (before the dissolution of the firm), acknowledged a stated amount due to the third — if this document be transferred by the latter, the transferee cannot plead it in compensation of a debt which he owes to one of the two partners.
Where three individuals composed a partnership by^a mitten document, before the dissolution of the firm, acknowledg-due to'the thTrdMf this document is transferred by the latter the transfer-it i n compensa-which°he owes^o one of the two parties. •
The defendant, Gomez, being sued on an account, offered in compensation an obligation, transferred to him by Cajegal, a former partner of the plaintiff.
This document, which was signed by the plaintiff and other partners, certified that Cajegal had a share or interest to .the value of $ 402, in a certain bakery, its utensils and management. The plaintiff had judgment for the amount claimed, and the defendant appealed.

Opinion:
Martin, J.
delivered the opinion of the court.
The defendant and appellant complains of the judgment, which rejects his plea of compensation.
This plea was grounded on the transfer of a document (to the defendant by Cajegal,) by which it appears that the transferror, the plaintiff, and a third person, being partners in a bakejy, the two latter acknowledged they had settled an account with the former, wherebyabalance was in his favour, on the close of a period, during which he had carried on the bakery.for the partnership, stating that balance, with his interest in the bakery, amounted to four hundred and odd , ,1 uOUaxs.
We think the parish judge did not err — the two partners did not engage to pay that sum to the transferror; it does , , , , . . , ,. , , not appear that the. partnership expired or was dissolved, hut ra^ier that it continued. The document shows only that, at its date, the transferree was in advance to the part- , . . . nership, and that his advances and his interest m the partnership amounted to the sum stated.
^ '1S' therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the Parish Court be affirmed with costs in both courts.