Legal Opinion

Rusca Cunningham v. Hammett

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided March 6, 1940No. 6091Published

1Opinion of the Court

TALIAFERRO, Judge.

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 mátente 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…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co. v. BridgerSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1913
  2. George T. Bishop, Inc. v. JonesLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1931

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

Powered by the Exa API