Municipality No. Two v. Groning
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants become the sureties of one Doorman, to whom was advanced the sum of four hundred dollars for work to be performed on the Poydras Market; that the suretyship of the defendants binds them for the performance of the work, or the repayment of the money; that Doorman has not complied with, the conditions on which the advance was made, and the defendants are liable for its repayment.
Read the full summary
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants become the sureties of one Doorman, to whom was advanced the sum of four hundred dollars for work to be performed on the Poydras Market; that the suretyship of the defendants binds them for the performance of the work, or the repayment of the money; that Doorman has not complied with, the conditions on which the advance was made, and the defendants are liable for its repayment. The defendants in their -answer, pleaded a general denial; but averred that Doorman had performed the work, and complied…
1Opinion of the CourtMartin, J.
The defendants are appellants from a judgment against them as sureties of one Doorman, for the sum of four hundred dollars, advanced to him by the plaintiffs on account of work done, or to be done, on the Poydras Market, on the 20th July, 1838.
*168There is an admission in the record, that on the first of August following, the plaintiffs paid to Doorman four hundred dollars “for work done on the Poydras Market.”
If between these two dates, Doorman performed work on the Poydras Market of the value of four hundred dollars, he was thereby released from his obligation to account for the money advanced…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Cline v. Crescent City RailroadSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1889
- McGary v. City of LafayetteSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1849