Legal Opinion
Rusca Cunningham v. Hammett
Louisiana Court of Appeal
Decided March 6, 1940No. 6091PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
This motion is based upon the theory that defendant's liability on the note sued on is only one-sixth thereof, which would be less than One Hundred ($100) Dollars; in other words, that the signers of the note are each liable only for his virile part, since, it is contended, the obligation is not solidary. Appellee's contention is that this court is without jurisdiction ratione materiæ to entertain the appeal.
The note reads, "I promise to pay", etc. It is signed by five other persons besides Hammett. Under subsection 7 of Sec. 17 of the N. I. L. (Act No. 64 of 1904) the note is a joint and…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Boullt v. SarpySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1878
- Union National Bank v. EvansSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1891
- J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co. v. BridgerSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1913
- Sentell v. WoodsLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1925
- George T. Bishop, Inc. v. JonesLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1931
3Cited by4 opinions
- Hidalgo v. DupuyLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1960
- Flintkote Company v. ThomasLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1969
- Burch v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1964
- John Deere Industrial Equipment Co. v. McCullenLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1973