Rusca Cunningham v. Hammett
Louisiana Court of Appeal
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
- J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co. v. BridgerSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1913
- George T. Bishop, Inc. v. JonesLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1931