Specialty Candy Co. v. Davis
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., November 22, 1950 48 So. 2d 689; La., April 15, 1874 26 La. Ann. 353; La. Ct. App. 3d Cir., March 10, 1971 245 So. 2d 531
Specialty Candy Co. v. Davis, 133 So. 493 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931).
Cited by
- Menville v. Stephens Chevrolet, Inc. 282 So. 2d 159 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
- Franks v. Harper 134 So. 2d 916 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
- Diecidue v. Kilpatrick 86 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
- Schneider v. Ruf. 176 So. 402 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
- International Shoe Co. v. Henderson 174 So. 203 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
- Hardman v. Schilling 138 So. 189 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- 30 La. Ann. 1263 not in our corpus
Opinion text
WEBB, J. In this action plaintiff sought to recover judgment against defendant as the guarantor of an open account due plaintiff by H. Oppenheimer, and plaintiff appealed from a ruling sustaining an exception of no cause of action and a judgment dismissing his suit. Appellant has not made any appearance here. The written act evidencing the guarantee made the basis of the suit shows that the guarantee related to a specific lot of goods sold to Oppenheimer by plaintiff long prior to the date of the account for which defendant is sought to be held liable as guarantor. The guarantee was not a continuing guarantee and there could not be any recovery under the written instrument (Bloom v. Kern, 30 La. Ann. 1263 ), and parol evidence could not have been received to prove any promise or guarantee of defendant to pay the debt (article 2278, Civil Code). The exception was properly sustained and plaintiff’s suit dismissed. The judgment is affirmed.