La. R.S. » RS
Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 10:3-105 (2026)

Issue of instrument

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§3-105. Issue of instrument

           (a) "Issue" means:

           (1) the first delivery of an instrument by the maker or drawer, whether to a holder or nonholder, for the purpose of giving rights on the instrument to any person; or

           (2) if agreed by the payee, the first transmission by the drawer to the payee of an image of an item and information derived from the item that enables the depositary bank to collect the item by transferring or presenting under federal law an electronic check.

           (b) An unissued instrument, or an unissued incomplete instrument that is completed, is binding on the maker or drawer, but nonissuance is a defense. An instrument that is conditionally issued or is issued for a special purpose is binding on the maker or drawer, but failure of the condition or special purpose to be fulfilled is a defense.

           (c) "Issuer" applies to issued and unissued instruments and means a maker or drawer of an instrument.

           Acts 1992, No. 1133, §3, eff. July 1, 1993; Acts 1993, No. 948, §10, eff. Jan. 1, 1994; Acts 2024, No. 773, §1, eff. August 1, 2024.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1977–2016 · leading case: Succession of Love, 201 So. 3d 1027 (La. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Succession of Love, 201 So. 3d 1027 (La. Ct. App. 2016). “” Thus, R.S. 10:3-105(c) provides that an issuer is a “maker or drawer of an instrument.”
La. Nat. Bank of Baton Rouge v. O'BRIEN, 439 So. 2d 552 (La. Ct. App. 1983). “R.S. 10:3-105(2)(a). [2] This interpretation of the note is supported by the sentence in the paragraph containing the seven day notice requirement, which states that, "This note is negotiable".”
Demaio v. Theriot, 343 So. 2d 1143 (La. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “” And LSA-R.S. 10:3-105(2)(a) provides that a promise to pay is conditional if the instrument “states that it is subject to or governed by any other agreement.”
Jefferson Bank & Trust Co. v. Stamatiou, 375 So. 2d 1185 (La. Ct. App. 1979). “R.S. 10:3-105. And since the entire contract apparently was assigned to plaintiff bank, it cannot be a holder in due course of a note which was non-negotiable when received R.”
State v. Deluzain, 38 So. 3d 1054 (La. Ct. App. 2010). “R.S. 10:3-105(a) (“ ‘issue’ means the first delivery of an instrument by the maker or drawer, whether to a holder or nonholder, for the purpose of giving rights on the instrument to any person.”
St. James Bank & Trust Co. v. Bd. of Commissioners, 354 So. 2d 233 (La. Ct. App. 1978). “’ This decision is, however, plainly overruled by LSA-R.S. 10:3-105(g), [10:3-105(l)(g)], which provides that a promise or order for payment is not made conditional by the fact that the instrument ‘is limited to payment out of a particular fund or the proceeds of a particular…”
State v. Albano, 752 So. 2d 152 (La. 2000). “R.S. 10:3-105(a). The court of appeal therefore erred when it observed that “[r]egardless of what [defendant’s] intent was at [the time he issued the check], his intent to defraud became obvious when he did not follow the initial payment plan set up by his agreement with the…”
La. Rev. Stat. § 10:3-105(2)(a): 2 cases
La. Nat. Bank of Baton Rouge v. O'BRIEN, 439 So. 2d 552 (La. Ct. App. 1983). “R.S. 10:3-105(2)(a). [2] This interpretation of the note is supported by the sentence in the paragraph containing the seven day notice requirement, which states that, "This note is negotiable".”
Demaio v. Theriot, 343 So. 2d 1143 (La. Ct. App. 1977). “” And LSA-R.S. 10:3-105(2)(a) provides that a promise to pay is conditional if the instrument “states that it is subject to or governed by any other agreement.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 10:3-105(a): 2 cases
State v. Deluzain, 38 So. 3d 1054 (La. Ct. App. 2010). “R.S. 10:3-105(a) (“ ‘issue’ means the first delivery of an instrument by the maker or drawer, whether to a holder or nonholder, for the purpose of giving rights on the instrument to any person.”
State v. Albano, 752 So. 2d 152 (La. 2000). “R.S. 10:3-105(a). The court of appeal therefore erred when it observed that “[r]egardless of what [defendant’s] intent was at [the time he issued the check], his intent to defraud became obvious when he did not follow the initial payment plan set up by his agreement with the…”
La. Rev. Stat. § 10:3-105(c): 1 case
Succession of Love, 201 So. 3d 1027 (La. Ct. App. 2016). “” Thus, R.S. 10:3-105(c) provides that an issuer is a “maker or drawer of an instrument.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 10:3-105(g): 1 case
St. James Bank & Trust Co. v. Bd. of Commissioners, 354 So. 2d 233 (La. Ct. App. 1978). “’ This decision is, however, plainly overruled by LSA-R.S. 10:3-105(g), [10:3-105(l)(g)], which provides that a promise or order for payment is not made conditional by the fact that the instrument ‘is limited to payment out of a particular fund or the proceeds of a particular…”
La. Rev. Stat. § 10:3-105(l)(c): 1 case
Demaio v. Theriot, 343 So. 2d 1143 (La. Ct. App. 1977). “” And LSA-R.S. 10:3-105(2)(a) provides that a promise to pay is conditional if the instrument “states that it is subject to or governed by any other agreement.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.