
    LAFERRIERE vs. BYNUM ET AL.
    Western Dist.
    
      Oct. 1838.
    APPEAL i'll OR THE COURT OF THE SIXTn JUDICIAL DISTRICT, FOR THE PARISH OP RAPIDES, THE JUDGE OF THE SEVENTH PRESIDING.
    Where the petition alleged “ that at the proper time, due and legal demand was made of payment of the note, at the proper place, and payment refused,” — the note being annexed as part of the petition, it was deemed a sufficient allegation of a demand to let in proof of it.
    tition 1 alleged perüme^due^and leSa! demand was made ot payment of the note place,6amTpay-™ent reused, the note being annexed as part °twafdeemeda th^dfademlnd to let in proof of
    . This is ail action against tbe makers and endorsers of. a promissory note, payable at the Bank of Louisiana, in New-Orleans.
    The plaintiff alleged, that payment was legally demanded, at the proper place and refused, of which demand and refusal due and legal notice was given to'each of the endorsers, etc. The note and protest were annexed', and made a part of the petition.
    Two of the defendants excepted to the plaintiff’s petition, on the ground that there was no legal demand, and no allegation of demand was made in the petition.
    The exception was overruled, and from judgment rendered therein the defendants appealed.
    
      Winn, for the plaintiff.
    
      Dunbar, contra.
   Garleton, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This action is brought by the endorser of a promissory note, made payable on its face at the Bank of Louisiana, in New-Orleans. The note is annexed, as making a part of the petition, in which the plaintiff avers, “that at the proper . r , . time, due and legal demand was made of the payment or said note, at the proper place, and payment refused.”

Two of the defendants, Thomas J. Wells and James D. . Spurlock, after pleading the general issue, allege, that no demand of payment has been made at the Bank of Louisiana, in the city of New-Orleans, where the note sued on •was made payable, and that no allegation of said demand is made in plaintiff’s petition.

T.ATEnnrr.T.~ welis.

There was judgment against all the defendants, two of whom, Wells and Spurlock, appealed. At the trial of the cause, the plaintiff offered evidence to prove that demand was made of the payment of the note, at the place indicated on its face. The counsel for the appellants objected to the introduction of this testimony, on the ground set out in their answer. But the court overruled their objection, and we think correctly, for the averments in the petition, taken in connexion with the note, which is made a part of it, are a sufficient allegation of a demand at the place agreed on by the parties, to let in proof of that fact..

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged, and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court.be affirmed, with costs.  