
    CANAL BANK vs. FISHER.
    Wester» Dis.
    September,1841
    ATTEAI. I3JOM THE CO-OUT OE THE EIETH DISTHICT, E031 THE PABISH OE ST. MAIW, THE JUDGE THEBEOE ERESIDIITG.
    A slight va-^U"- in setting out the name of a corporation will not affect the right to maintain the action.
    This is a suit on a promissory note signed by the defendant; who excepted to the petition, because the plaintiffs sue by the style and name of the' “New Orleans Canal and Banking Company,” instead of the “ The President and Director- of the New Orleans Canal and Banking Company at Franklin.” This exception was overruled. The defendant pleaded a general denial; and judgment being for the plaintiffs, he appealed.
    
      Maskell, for the plaintiffs.
    
      Anderson, for defendant and appellant, submitted the case.
   Garland, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action on a promissory note. The^defendant excepts that the “ action cannot be sustained, the petition does not mention the President and the Directors of the said Canal and Banking Company at Franklin, where the note was made payable.” The article 433 of the La. Code, says corporations raus|. jjave a name given them by the Legislature, and in thaí they must sue or be sued, although a slight variation in this name is not important. In this case the suit is in the name given by the Legislature, and the purpose - of the exception seems to be to compel the corporation to append something to the name given by law. The exception is untenable and the appeal in our opinion frivolous.

The judgment of the District Court is therefore affirmed with costs, and ten per centum damages.  