Lafourche Transportation Co. v. Pugh

Citations

• 52 La. Ann. 1517

Syllabus

<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>1. Authority to make notes and to grant mortgages must be express and special, and is not conveyed by a general mandate authorizing an agent to take charge of, adjust, manage, and control the interests of heirs in a succession, although such agent may be called upon, in the proper discharge of his functions, to manage a plantation which forms part of the inheritance ot such heirs and to obtain advances for that purpose.</p> <p>2. An agent’s declaration of his authority, made in an act of mortgage executed by him in the name of his alleged principal, proves nothing, as to the existence of such authority.</p> <p>3. Where the sole cause of action, stated in the petition, is a contract alleged to have been made by the duly authorized agent of the defendant; to permit the introduction of evidence of ratification, by defendant, by acquiescence in what such alleged agent has done, is to allow the plaintiff to shift his ground and recover upon a cause of action not alleged. *</p> <p>4. In a suit upon a promissory note secured by mortgage, evidence of want, or failure, of consideration is not admissible, under a general denial.</p> <p>5. One who accepts a mortgage, though merely pro forma, becomes a party to the act, and is bound by recitals therein contained affecting his interests; and a plaintiff, suing for the enforcement of such mortgage, need not set up the estoppel, in his petition, since one is not bound to allege matter the materiality of which depends upon the possible plea of his opponents.</p> <p>6. Where one makes a note as the agent of several others, and signs but once, for all his constituents, the fact that the promise to pay is made in the first person, “I promise”, does not make it an obligation in sol/iclo. Solidarity is not presumed, and, thus speaking, the agent represents his constituents, collectively. The case would be different if he signed separately for each constituent.</p>