37 La. Ann. 160
Decided March 15, 1885
Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1885-03-15
<p>Aii obligation containing the words: ‘‘This is to certify that I am to pay,” etc., is an unconditional promise to pay money or a promissory note.</p> <p>Suits brought on unconditional obligations to pay money, must be tried without a jury, unless the defendant pleads want of consideration, or sets up a reconvontional demand, and makes oatli to tjie truth of the allegations of his defense.</p> <p>In such suits, and in tbo absence of such oath to such defenses, the court is right in striking the case from tho jury docket and in passing upon it itself</p>
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently June 1968
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1885-03-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶2The note and the contract establish plaintiff’s demand.
¶3' The evidence, under the reconventional demand for remote ami supposititious damages, has failed to satisfy us, as it did the district judge, that, as charged, the plaintiff' had interfered with the defendant’s business by deterring others from dealing with him. The plaintiff in reconvention was projierly non suited.
¶4Judgment affirmed with costs.