Case ID: la_15/html/0166-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Martin, J.,\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MUNICIPALITY NO. TWO vs. GRONING ET AL.
    Eastern Dist.
    
      March, 1840.
    APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT.
    Where it appears that the principal is released from the obligation to account for certain moneys advanced to him, ,his sureties in the obligation will be discharged.
    
      The plaintiffs allege that the defendants become the sureties of one Doorman, to whom was advanced the sum of four hundred dollars for work to be performed on the Poydras Market; that the suretyship of the defendants binds them for the performance of the work, or the repayment of the money; that Doorman has not complied with, the conditions on which the advance was made, and the defendants are liable for its repayment. The defendants in their -answer, pleaded a general denial; but averred that Doorman had performed the work, and complied in all respects, by extra work, &c. done, with his obligation. The sureties bound themselves on the 20th July, 1838, for the sum of four hundred dollars, “the advance required from the Municipality at that date, for work done and to be done on the Poydras Market.”
    It was admitted, in evidence, “that on the 1st August, 1838, the sum of four hundred dollars was paid to Doorman by the plaintiffs, for work done on the Poydras-street Market.”
    There was also evidence of extra work ; and a bill, produced in March, 1839, approved by the city surveyor, amounting to three hundred and nineteen dollars and sixty-two cents.
    The district judge was, however, of opinion that the plaintiffs made out their case, and rendered judgment for the amount claimed ; from which the defendants appealed.
    
      Rawle, attorney for the Municipality, submitted the case.
    
      Mitchell, for the defendants,
    insisted that the admission in the record, showed that twelve days after the advance, a sum sufficient to cover or replace it had been made by the plaintiffs. The judgment should, therefore, be reversed.
   Martin, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The defendants are appellants from a judgment against them as sureties of one Doorman, for the sum of four hundred dollars, advanced to him by the plaintiffs on account of work done, or to be done, on the Poydras Market, on the 20th July, 1838.

There is an admission in the record, that on the first of August following, the plaintiffs paid to Doorman four hundred dollars “for work done on the Poydras Market.”

If between these two dates, Doorman performed work on the Poydras Market of the value of four hundred dollars, he was thereby released from his obligation to account for the money advanced him; and the obligation of his sureties vanished with that of their principal.

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be annulled and reversed ; and that ours be for the defendants, with costs in both courts.