Thornton v. Beeson

• Decision Date: 30 June 1933
• Docket Number: 1171
• Citation: Thornton v. Beeson, 149 So. 117 (La. App. 1933)
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana
• Parties: THORNTON v. BEESON

149 So. 117

THORNTON v. BEESON

No. 1171

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

June 30, 1933

Thompson & Ferguson, of Leesville, for appellant.

S. I Foster, of Leesville, for appellee.

OPINION

MOUTON Judge.

A judgment was rendered in this case between the same parties reported in 17 La.App. 37, 135 So. 283.

In that decision, we held that plaintiff would have the right to proceed against Mrs. Amy Hogland and her husband, C. F Hogland, to compel either of them or both to pay the notes they had executed to the order of Beeson and by him given to Thornton, plaintiff herein, as part of the purchase price of a tract of land; and, if plaintiff could not compel Mrs. Hogland or her husband to pay the notes, that Thornton would have the right to proceed against Beeson, defendant herein, to enforce the payment of the notes he had received from Beeson as part of the purchase price of the land plaintiff had sold to Beeson.

Plaintiff, proceeding in accordance with the judgment of this court rendered in 1931, obtained a judgment on the notes against Hogland and his wife, issued a fieri facias, and upon a return by the sheriff of no property found, instituted this suit against Beeson to obtain the payment of the notes.

In passing over the issues presented on the original trial of this case, in which practically the same contentions were urged as are herein set out on this second trial, we held that Thornton, plaintiff, had a cause of action on these notes against Beeson, defendant, and the exception of no cause of action filed by defendant herein was therefore properly overruled by the district judge.

Merits.

In our former opinion, it was held that the notes given as a portion of the purchase price of the land sold by Thornton to Beeson, if not worthless, had little value, otherwise the sale would have been held valid and no right of action would have been reserved in favor of Thornton to proceed on the notes against Beeson, in the event they would not be realized upon by Thornton against Mr. and Mrs. Hogland, makers of the notes.

It was also held that parol proof was admissible to show that the true consideration for the sale from plaintiff to Beeson was not cash, as therein stated, but that most all of the price was represented by these notes; and that the tender which Beeson said he had made was not binding on plaintiff, who was in his legal rights when he refused to accept it.

The...