Varney v. Monroe Nat. Bank
Citations
- 119 La. 943
- 44 So. 753
- 1907 La. LEXIS 567
Syllabus
<p>1. Bills and Notes — Genuine Draft with Forged Bill of Lading.</p> <p>A draft was discounted, with bill of lading attached. It was genuine, and was drawn on plaintiff with his authorization, and was paid by him. The bill of lading was a forgery.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Gent. Dig. vol. 7, Bills and Notes, § 1269.]</p> <p>2. Same — Error.</p> <p>Plaintiff sued the defendant to return the amount, on the ground that it was paid in error and that defendant was liable for the error.</p> <p>3. Same — Business Relation Between Drawer and Plaintiff.</p> <p>What mistake there was, was plaintiff’s, for trusting the dishonest drawer of the draft, who annexed to it a forged bill of lading.</p> <p>Provosty and Monroe, JJ., dissenting.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- stating that “a Title II federal employee may bring a FMLA claim before the MSPB, and thereafter appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,” but that such an appeal would be “the end of the road”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Breaux, Land, Monroe, Sty
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.