Putnam & King, Ltd. v. Live Oak Mercantile Co.

Citations

• 122 La. 507
• 47 So. 846
• 1908 La. LEXIS 491

Syllabus

<p>1. Account Closed — Promise to Pat.</p> <p>The account was closed; the defendant promised to pay the amount after it had been •closed.</p> <p>■2. Application op Proceeds — Imputation op Payments — Advances.</p> <p>The defendants agreed with plaintiffs that the proceeds of the crop to be produced would 'be applied to the payment of any and all amounts due.</p> <p>Z. Payment (§' 38*) — Application op Proceeds.</p> <p>The proceeds of the crop were applied to •the indebtedness of defendants, as authorized by the contract.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Payment, Cent. Dig. §§ 99-103; Dec. Dig. § 38.*]</p> <p>A. Examination op Account — Alleged Error.</p> <p>Plaintiffs’ account was examined into; the ■testimony does not prove the error charged.</p> <p>,5. Guaranty (§ 70*) — Discharge op Guarantor-Plaintiffs Not Liable for Delay.</p> <p>Defendants had not ordered plaintiffs, as commission merchants, to sell the cotton crop they had on hand for defendants. It was agreed •that plaintiffs would hold it until July 1, 1906. It was thus held, and sold a few days thereafter. The testimony shows no fault of which .defendants have good ground for complaint.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Guaranty, •Cent. Dig. § 79; Dec. Dig. § 70.*]</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>