Case Name: Syndics of A. Dunbar v. E. E. Woods et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1850-02
Citations: 5 La. 135
Docket Number: 
Parties: Syndics of A. Dunbar v. E. E. Woods et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 135–135

Head Matter:
Syndics of A. Dunbar v. E. E. Woods et al.
"Where a note was given, secured by mortgage, which recited that the note was to be signed by A. B. and C., but which was never signed by 0., and the transaction appearing to be still incomplete and still pending before the notary, there being no evidence as to the manner in which the plaintiff came into possession of the note, an action on the note against B. cannot be maintained.
APPEAL by plaintiffs from the District Court of West Baton Rouge, Burk, J.
George S. Lacey, for appellants:
“It was not the duty of the plaintiffs to procure the additional security; and if Frame A. Woods was contented to affix his signature to the notes, in the absence of Erasmus P. Woods, he must abide by the consequences. The syndics could have demanded the names of both; but it was not imperative upon them to do so. If, however, the defence is well urged, the court should, at least, have rendered a judgment against Frame for the third amount of the note ; this would be placing him in the same situation he would have been in, had Erasmus signed ; he ought not to be in a better situation.”
J. M. Elam, for appellee:
E. P. Woods, not signing the notes sued on, and the syndics taking judgment by confession from E. E Woods, the principal debtor, and granting a stay of execution, Frame A. Woods, as the security, became discharged from any liability.”

Opinion:
The judgment of the court was pronounced by
Eustis, C. J.
This is an action on three promissory notes, signed by Ezer E. Woods, and the appellant, Frame A. Woods. Judgment was asked against the defendants, and that certain slaves mortgaged, to secure the payment of the notes, be sold to pay the debt.
Ezer E. Woods confessed judgment, and afterwards the suit having been ti-ied against Frame A. Woods, judgment was rendered in his favor, and the plaintiffs have appealed.
It appears, that by the act of mortgage, of which the plaintiffs seek to avail themselves in this action, the notes which the mortgage was given to receive, are described as having been signed by Ezer E. Woods, F. A. Woods) and E. P. Woods. The latter did not sign the notes, though his name appears in its proper place, written in pencil. There is no evidence as to the manner in which the plaintiffs came into possession of the notes, and the transaction appears to be incomplete and still pending before the notary, before whom the act was passed. On the authority of the case of Villere v. Brogner, 3 Martin, 326 and 507, the action on the notes against the appellant, cannot be sustained.
The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed, with costs.