Court Opinion

ID: 7157511
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-24 16:13:08.907271+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:15:16.753784
License: Public Domain

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.