Purdy v. Forstall
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL from the Seventh District Court, Parish of East Carroll. Montgomery, J. af maturity and enforced the obligation against his principal. 28 An. (N. R.), Case vs. Sarpy; 29 An. 844, Hill & Co. vs. Bourcier et al. 1. Forbearance to sue does'nofc release the surety, who might have paid the debt 2. Mere inaction on the part of the creditor does not discharge the surety. 32 An. 1280, Pharr vs. McHugh & Vinson.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Nicholls, O. J.
The plaintiff alleges that under a writ of ft. fa. issued from the District Court for East Carroll parish in suits Nos. 701, 705, 708, 709, 711 and 748 the sheriff of that parish had seized and advertised for sale certain property belonging to him.
*815That he was informed that said writ was issued at the instance and under the instructions and order of Anatole J. Forstall, upon a cer-. tain pretended twelve months’ bond for $2400, which he claims to own, given for the sale of a lot of mules and other pers'onal property-sold under judgments…
2Cited by4 opinions
- John M. Parker & Co. v. GuillotSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1907
- Federal Schools, Inc. v. KuntzLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1931
- Boyce Machinery Corp. v. Carpet Inn, Inc.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1973
- O'Banion v. WillisLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1930