Roberts & Crain v. Jenkins
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Western- Dis. ÍEÍEAE EH05I THE COURT OE THE TEETH DISTRICT, TOR THE DARISH 01" CADDO, JUDGE CAMBBEBE PBESIBIEG. This is an action on tbe following note against one of the makers only; McLeod, the other, being dead. “ Shreveport, July 1st, 1839.” “ $2,459. — One day after date, we promise to pay to the order of James G. Jones, the sum of twenty-four hundred and fifty-nine dollars, for value received.” “J. C. McLeod.” “W. Jenkiss.” The defendant Jenkins alone is sued.
Read the full summary
Western- Dis. ÍEÍEAE EH05I THE COURT OE THE TEETH DISTRICT, TOR THE DARISH 01" CADDO, JUDGE CAMBBEBE PBESIBIEG. This is an action on tbe following note against one of the makers only; McLeod, the other, being dead. “ Shreveport, July 1st, 1839.” “ $2,459. — One day after date, we promise to pay to the order of James G. Jones, the sum of twenty-four hundred and fifty-nine dollars, for value received.” “J. C. McLeod.” “W. Jenkiss.” The defendant Jenkins alone is sued. The plaintiffs allege, he is surety for McLeod, and consequently bound for the whole debt. They propounded interrogatories…
1Opinion of the CourtMartin, J.
The plaintiffs are appellants from a judgment, in which they have recovered one half only of the amount of the note, on vt$iich the suit is brought. It was signed by another person *454and the defendant, and is therefore on its face a joint note, or-obligation>
The plaintiffs and appellants allege, that the defendant signed the note as surety. To establish this, they propounded an interrogatory, which the defendant failed to answer, and it must therefore he taken pro confesso. Although on the face of the note, judgment should have been given for the defendant’s virile part only, the circumstance…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Smith v. FreylerMontana Supreme Court · 1882
- Downs v. WallCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1910
- Butler v. FordSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1844