Summary

John McLean Brabston v. Gibson — Opinion of the Court

These notes, being negotiable, were assigned to the plaintiff, for a valuable consideration, without notice, prior to the act of redemption. That act being a voluntary one by Harris, the assignor of the notes, it could in no respect prejudice the rights of his assignee. Under the laws of Louisiana, the right of redemption may be enforced against a purchaser of the thing liable to be redeemed, though that fact was not named in the second sale. And when a vendor recovers the possession of land, by virtue of the power of redemption, he takes it free of all encumbrances created by the purchaser.
Source: Wikisource

John McLean Brabston v. Gibson — Opinion of the Court

The facts not being within the statute cannot be set up as a defence under it. They do not show 'an illegal consideration, a failure of consideration, payment, discount, or set-off.' There was no pretence of payment of these notes in the redemption of the property. They were declared to remain in force, and to be subject to extinguishment when obtained. The case cited, of Parham v. Randolph, 4 How. Miss. 453, was where the note was given for land, the title to which failed; the failure of the consideration was held a good defence against the note in the hands of an assignee.
Source: Wikisource

John McLean Brabston v. Gibson — Opinion of the Court

There is not a single circumstance to warrant the allegation of fraudulent co operation between the maker (Gibson) and the payee (Harris) against the assignee (Brabston) . On the contrary, if there is evidence of fraud, it is in the withholding, by the assignee (Brabston) , of all notice of the assignment, which was contrary to law; in neglecting also to give Gibson any notice of the non-payment at maturity of Harris's own note of $6,000 (for which the notes in question were held merely as collateral security)
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature