Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Moss v. Robinson, 43 So. 2d 613.

18 citing documents.

S & S Cash Register & Computer Co. v. Caldarera 627 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
(citations omitted) But if the defendant offers evidence which overcomes the prima facie case, that is, easts doubt upon the reality of the consideration, the ultimate burden of proving consideration, by evidence that preponderates, is on the plaintiff, (citations omitted) , (1949).
Brashears v. Williams 294 So. 2d 246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
(1949); Bernard Brothers v. Dugas, 229 La.
O'Neal v. Williams 290 So. 2d 393 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
7:24; , , and cases there cited.
Andrews v. Williams 281 So. 2d 120 La. 1973
Harrison v. Occhipinti 251 So. 2d 188 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
7:24; , , and cases there cited.
Piper v. Neyrey 222 So. 2d 558 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
7:24; , , and cases there cited.
Lighthouse Life Insurance v. Johnson 180 So. 2d 108 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
(1949); Bernard Brothers v. Dugas, 229 La.
Atlas Drilling Co. of Opelousas v. Creole Explorations, Inc. 170 So. 2d 123 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
followed by the Supreme Court in the cases of Bernard Brothers v. Dugas, 229 La.
Mochitta v. Lemak 165 So. 2d 568 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
and cases therein cited.
Tatum v. Four Pac Oil & Chemical Corp. 132 So. 2d 569 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
181 , ; , (where the maker likewise testified that the promissory note was executed only as a reassurance and not for a valuable consideration); Eskew v. Walker, above-cited; Trailer Enterprises, Inc. v. Eikenbary, above-cited; Bevis v. Alexander, La.App.
Giannopulos v. Philips 129 So. 2d 306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Eskew v. Walker 127 So. 2d 210 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
7:24; , , and cases there cited.
Moody v. Gossen 125 So. 2d 264 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Trailer Enterprises, Inc. v. Eikenbary 122 So. 2d 655 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
7:24; , , and cases there cited.
Cooper v. Succession of Cooper 101 So. 2d 686 La. 1958
To quote from the brief of his counsel: “ * * * the check claim was dismissed by the plaintiff and that left only the question of the note itself.” With reference to the proof to be made in a , .
Bevis v. Alexander 88 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
This principle is well established and is clearly set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court, and the cases cited in its opinion, , , in which the court declared: “But if the defendant offers evidence which overcomes the prima facie case, that is, casts doubt upon the reality of *400 the consideration, the ultimate burden of proving consideration, by evidence that preponderates, is on the plaintiff!’ (Emphasis supplied.)
Redi-Spuds, Inc. v. Dickey 88 So. 2d 801 La. 1956
which holds that where a plaintiff introduces a-note in evidence Ije is., not required in the first instance to produce any further proof of consideration, .even.thpiigh the defendant has pleaded a want of consideration; but, if the defendant offers evidence which overcomes the prima facie case — -tha
Bernard Brothers v. Dugas 85 So. 2d 257 La. 1956
7:24; , , and cases there cited.