State National Bank v. Cason
| Decision Date | 01 July 1887 |
| Docket Number | 1291 |
| Citation | 39 La.Ann. 865,2 So. 881 |
| Parties | STATE NATIONAL BANK v. ADDIE L. CASON |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Twelfth District Court, Parish of Avoyelles. Overton, J.
Farrar & Montgomery and Wm. Hall, for Plaintiff and Appellee.
Thorpe & Peterman, for Defendant and Appellee.
The plaintiff, as holder and endorser of a promissory note executed by the defendant for $ 2,500, sued to recover the amount thereof, with interest.
The defence presented by the answer is in substance that the note was given as collateral security for plantation supplies to be furnished the defendant for the year 1884 by Gidiere, Day & Co., the payees of the note; that shortly after the execution of the note, and when only a small part of the supplies had been furnished, Gidiere, Day & Co. failed. That one W. A. Pollack succeeded to the business of the firm, and he in turn was succeeded by one C. S. Farrar, by whom advances to the plantation were continued. That by shipments of cotton to the latter her accounts for supplies, which the note was given to cover, was fully paid. That the consideration of the note was known to the bank at the time it became the holder of it.
There was judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the amount of the note, less $ 271.11, allowed as a credit thereon. Defendant has appealed, and plaintiff asks an amendment of the judgment, rejecting the credit allowed by the lower court.
It is shown that the note was transferred to the bank before maturity and for value, and that the bank was informed of the consideration of the note; and the single question is presented whether such knowledge on the part of the bank deprived it of the right to recover on the note.
The consideration of the note was a lawful and valuable consideration. At the time the plaintiff became the holder of the note there had been no failure of the consideration, for it was before the surrender of Gidiere Day & Co., and when the contract between defendant and Gidiere, Day & Co. was being executed, and part of the supplies had been advanced.
As the consideration of the note was a valid one, plaintiff could not have been affected prejudicially by the knowledge of it. If the consideration be lawful the knowledge of that consideration can of itself have no bearing on the rights of the transferee. It is the knowledge of the failure of the consideration or of secret equities between the original parties thereto that would prevent recovery thereon as between said parties.
The right of plaintiff to recover on the note is the more apparent when we consider that in this instance, in accordance with the mode in which business is usually...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Todd v. State Bank of Edgewood
...that payment was to be made if the payee did certain things. See Siegel v. Bank, 131 Ill. 570, 23 N. E. 417, 7 L. R. A. 537;National Bank v. Cason, 39 La. Ann. 865, 2 South. 881;McCarty v. Howell, 24 Ill. 341;Bank v. McMichael, 96 N. C. 53, 1 S. E. 855;Davis v. McCready, 17 N. Y. 230, 72 Am......
-
Todd v. State Bank of Edgewood
... ... also Brooke v. Struthers , 110 Mich. 562 (68 N.W ... 272, 275); Jacobs v. Mitchell , 46 Ohio St. 601, 22 ... N.E. 768; National Hardware Co. v. Sherwood , 165 ... Cal. 1 (130 P. 881, 883); Consterdine v. Moore , 65 ... Neb. 291 (96 N.W. 1021); Garnett v. Meyers , 65 Neb ... See ... Siegel, Cooper & Co. v. Chicago Trust & Sav. Bk. , ... 131 Ill. 569 (23 N.E. 417); National Bank v. Cason , ... 39 La.Ann. 865, 2 So. 881; McCarty v. Howell , 24 ... Ill. 341; First Nat. Bank v. Michael , (N. C.) 1 S.E ... 855; Davis v. McCready , ... ...
-
Powell & Powell v. Greenleaf & Currier
... ... note, the negotiability of the paper is destroyed. First ... National Bank in Salem v. Morgan, 132 ... Ore. 515, 284 P. 582, 3 R. C. L. p. 883, ... which merely state the consideration upon which it is made, ... and impose no other ... In ... State National Bank v. Cason, 39 La. Ann ... 865, 2 So. 881, 882, it is said: "It cannot affect the ... ...
-
Powell & Powell v. Greenleaf & Currier
...either as to the time of payment or the sum to be paid." And it was held that the instrument was negotiable. In State National Bank v. Cason, 39 La. Ann. 865, 2 So. 881, 882, it is said: "It cannot affect the negotiability of a note that its consideration is to be hereafter realized, or tha......