Mutual National Bank v. Coco

Citations

• 107 La. 268

Syllabus

<p>Syllabus</p> <p>1. Where a person who places his signature on a promissory note for the further security of the holder, whether he be considered a surety or co-maker, gives his written consent that the payment of the note be extended to a fixed date, but the extension is not granted by the holder, such consent, regarded as an acknowledgment, has no other date than that which it bears, and the prescription applicable to promissory notes begins to run in his favor from that date, and not'from the date to which the consent refers.</p> <p>% The mere fact that the holder of a note has failed to sue on it will not justify the inference that he consented to extend the time of payment, in the face of positive testimony to the contrary.</p>