Legal Opinion

Aucoin v. Guillot

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided February 15, 1855PublishedCited by 6 opinions

from the District Court of the Parish of Assumption, Gole, J. It is a general rule of law, that in whatever manner a man may deem it fit to bind himself so shall ho bo bound. This rule like all others has its limitations and exceptions. ¥e will examine first the extent of, and second the exception to the rule as applied to the contract of suretyship. It is found in the Roman law Fidejussor aeeipi potest quoties est aliqua ob-ligatio cirilis rel natumlis, cui applieeiur.

Read the full summary

from the District Court of the Parish of Assumption, Gole, J. It is a general rule of law, that in whatever manner a man may deem it fit to bind himself so shall ho bo bound. This rule like all others has its limitations and exceptions. ¥e will examine first the extent of, and second the exception to the rule as applied to the contract of suretyship. It is found in the Roman law Fidejussor aeeipi potest quoties est aliqua ob-ligatio cirilis rel natumlis, cui applieeiur. Vide Pothicr Oblig. No. 395; also in the Spanish law, Par. 5th, title 12, law 5; in French law, N. 0., Art. 2012; also in…

1Opinion of the CourtSlidell, C. J.

The defendant is surety in an official bond given in favor of the District Judge by a father and natural tutor, conditioned for the faithful administration of his trust. The Judge had no lawful authority to require such bond from the father, and therefore the court below correctly held the bond invalid. The maxim that as aman consents to bind himself so shall he be bound is not fairly applicable to such a judicial bond, which is not in legal contemplation purely voluntary, but is required by the Judge from the parties as the condition for the exercise of a function. If he be entitled to such…

2Cited by6 opinions

  1. Watkins v. MinterTexas Supreme Court · 1915
  2. Leona I., M. & C. Co. v. RobertsTexas Supreme Court · 1884
  3. Dudley v. RiceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
  4. Town of Merton v. HansenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1930
  5. Succession of CampbellSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1913

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API