HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0377 and id is 1 raw text is: GENERES v. CAMPBELL.
Statement of the case.
GENERES V. CAMPBELL.
1. The act of 8d March, 1865, providing for a trial without a jury, and a
review by this court of the facts found by the judge, either generally or
specially, by a sufficient bill of exceptions, is general in its terms, and
embraces the State of Louisiana.
2. Though the statute of Wesqtminster requires bills of exceptions to be*
sealed, yet as neither an act of Congress nor rule of court has made this
requirement here, it is sufficient if the bill be signed by the j udge.
8. When the bill of exceptions does not purport to set forth all the evidence
on either of the subjects to which the exception relates, and the judg-
ment states that it was rendered for reasons orally assigned, and
these are not found in the -record, there is nothing on which error can
be assigned, and the judgment must be affirmed.
ERROR to the Circuit Court for the District of Louisiana;
the case being thus:
Campbell sued Generes, November, 1868, in the court
below, as indorser of a promissory note, given as the price.
of certain slaves, and executed, at New Orleans April 4, 1861,
payable in that city two years after date, at the office of
Abat, Generes & Co.
The petition averred that when the note became due,
April 7th, 1863, there was a civil war existing in Louisiana
and other States of the Union; that all intercourse between
New Orleans and the place of the then residence of the plain-
tiff, to wit, the parish of St. Helena, was interrupted and
prohibited; that the petitioner was unable to make the pre-
sentment and demand of the note at the place of payment
by reason of the existing war and the prohibition and inter-
ruption of intercourse thereby created; that the petitioner
could not come from said parish; that this condition con-
tinued until the month of June, 1865; that immediately after
its cessation the petitioner came to New Orleans and de-
manded payment of the note; and that the defendant had
due notice of all of the foregoing circumstances.
The defences were, that the defendant was not liable as
indorser, from want of protest and notice of protest; that
the note was extinguished by prescription; that being given
for a purchase of slaves, it could not now give rise to an
VOL. XI. 13
Dec. 1870.]](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ussccases0377&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)