Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

14 La. Ann. 267

Weems v. Ventress

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided April 15, 1859

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1859-04-15

<p>Where it is stipulated, in an act of sale, that the note given for the price, shall remain deposited with the parish Recordor, until a certificate of non-mortgage is furnished, its possession by the plaintiff, is prima, fade ovidence, that it was delivered to him by the depositary after a certificate furnished.</p> <p>If the plaintiff came into possession of the note improperly, the defendant’s remedy would have been by injunction, not by anappoal from the order of seizure and sale.</p> <p>Where a note boars interest from maturity, the interest begins to run from the day of payment specified, without allowing for days of graco.</p> <p>Parties against whom executory process is issued for an amount which exceeds in some particular tho sum shown to be due by tho documents filed, ought to address themselves to the Judge who issued the order, to have tho error corrected, instead of making such error the pretext for an appeal involving vexatious delays.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1884

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1859-04-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Merrick, C. J.,

¶1dissenting. I cannot think that the promissory note payable to order, matured, so as to bear interest, before the expiration of the last day of grace. Acts 1855, p. 47, sec. 6, and p. 352 ; Story on Promissory Notes, sec. 215, and note 1; Ohitty on Bills, ed. 1849, p. 521; McDonald v. Lee’s Administrator.

¶2And as I see no reason to overrule the case of Cumming v. Archinard et al., 1 An. 280, I am unable to concur in the decree in this case.

/14/laann/267 · .json · Public domain