Vignie v. Brady
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., July 2, 1982 417 So. 2d 1351; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., April 17, 1972 262 So. 2d 397; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., June 20, 1958 104 So. 2d 247
Vignie v. Brady, 35 La. Ann. 560 (1883).
Cited by
- Walker v. Jim Austin Motor Company 162 So. 2d 135 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
- Blackwell v. Nagy 122 So. 2d 903 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
- Smith v. Chappell 148 So. 242 La. 1933
- Flower v. Flower 7 La. App. 530 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1928
- Lattimer's Heirs v. Gulf Refining Co. 83 So. 543 La. 1919
Opinion text
On Motion to Dismiss. The opinion of the Court was delivered by Manning, J. The appeal is by defendants, and their bond recites that they are “ bound in solido as principals and as sureties.” It i& not *561 signed by Charpaux, nor need it be as a principal. It is signed by Brady per his attorney of record, and that is sufficient as a principal. The. motion is on the ground that these parties are set out in the bond as sureties as well as principáis, and there is no name of any other surety in the body of the bond. There is another signature at the bottom beneath Brady’s, viz: J. Cahier. It is in the place where a surety signs. He does not sign as a witness. There are two witnesses to the instrument, and besides he has the L. S. immediately after his signature. No one but an obligor putshis name at tlte locus sigilli. The point has been settled by the Succession of Lyons, unreported, and Coyle vs. Suc. Creevy, 34 Ann. 541. The motion is refused.