Legal Opinion

Watkins v. Haydel

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided May 25, 1931No. 30186PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSt. Paul, J.

This is a suit on a note worded “we promise to pay,” and signed by both defendants. The defendants therefore were bound thereon only jointly, and not jointly or severally or in solido. Mayor, etc., of New Orleans v. Ripley, 5 La. 120, 25 Am. Dec. 175; Barrow v. Norwood, 3 La. 437; Bennett v. Allison, 2 La. 419; Bank of Louisiana v. Sterling, 2 La. 60.

There was judgment upon the note against the defendant Fernand Haydel, and he has not appealed, so that there is nothing before us concerning his liability.

The other defendant, Dr. F. A. Keller, pleaded prescription; which plea was sus-, tained…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Reynolds v. RowleySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1847
  2. Barrow v. NorwoodSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1832
  3. Mayor of New-Orleans v. RipleySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1833
  4. Bennett v. AllisonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1831
  5. Bank of Louisiana v. SterlingSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1830

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Johnson v. Jones-JournetSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1975
  2. Stewart v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1944
  3. Swan v. MayerLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1968
  4. Seelig v. BrussoLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1960

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API