Langstaff v. Lees

Decided April 15, 1856

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1856-04-15

<p>A plea of “ failure of consido ration.” in a suit on a promissory note, without specification of the consideration, or of the time, place or circumstance of its failure, is too vague to authorize the admission of proof upon it.</p>

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The defendants, by their answer, admitted their signatures, and pleaded ‘failure of consideration,’ without any specification, either of the consideration of these notes, or of the time, place or circumstances of its failure. “We agree with the District Court, that this, plea is too vague to authorize the admission of proof upon it.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Commercial Bank & Trust Co. v. Provensal

Relies on Pargoud v. Guice

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1856-04-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 1963

6 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Buchanan, J.

¶1The plaintiffs are holders of two notes of defendants, made payable to their own order, and by themselves endorsed in blank, which were protested at maturity for non-payment.

¶2The defendants, by their answer, admitted their signatures, and pleaded “ failure of consideration,” without any specification, either of the consideration of these notes, or of the time, place or circumstances of its failure.

¶3We agree with the District Court, that this plea is too vague to authorize the admission of proof upon it. Pargoud v. Guise, 6 La. 77.

¶4The appellees have asked for damages, as for a frivolous appeal. But we have doubts whether this is a case for the application of such a penalty. We must infer from the bill of exceptions, that some sort of evidence was offered by defendants, which was ruled out, solely by reason of the insufficiency of the plea.

¶5Judgment affirmed, with costs.