Case Name: The State, etc., ex. rel. C. Roman, President, etc., v. The Judge of the Sixth District Court for the Parish of Orleans
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1869-05
Citations: 21 La. Ann. 443
Docket Number: No. 2292
Parties: The State, etc., ex. rel. C. Roman, President, etc., v. The Judge of the Sixth District Court for the Parish of Orleans.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 21
Pages: 443–445

Head Matter:
No. 2292.
The State, etc., ex. rel. C. Roman, President, etc., v. The Judge of the Sixth District Court for the Parish of Orleans.
An. appeal bond is lawful and operative wlien signed by two or more sureties who bind themselves each for a stated sum or portion of the bond, the aggregate amount of th.o’ respective sums being the lull amount required by law.
A PPLICATION for a writ of prohibition.
A. (& M. Voorhies, for
relators.
Reporter. — The question of the validity of an appeal bond, where the sureties thereon limit their liability to a certain amount was first determined in the case of Bastable’s Heirs v. Succession of Denegre in the month of June, 1863, by the Supreme .Court organized under the Constitution of 1864. The question arose in that case on a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the bond was invalid, the sureties having divided their liability. In that case it was hold that the sureties could limit their liability. That case which is still pending-in the Supreme Court forms a precedent for the decision in this case, Mr. Chief Justice Ludeling and Mr. Justice Taliaferro'dissenting from the majority of the Court.

Opinion:
Howe, J.
The question to be decided in this case is whether a bond furnished for a suspensive appeal is lawful and operative when executed by two or more sureties who bind themselves each for a stated sum or portion of the bond. The aggregate amount of the respective sums being the full amount required by law.
This question was discussed and determined in the affirmative in the case of Bastable's Heirs v. Succession of Denegre, decided on motion to dismiss in June, 1863, but which has not yet boon reported' for the reason that the cause has not yet been tried on the merits. We adhere to the opinion expressed in that case, and are therefore constrained to decide that the writ demanded herein must issue.
It is therefore ordered that a writ of prohibition be issued as prayed for, directing the respondent to proceed no further in the ease of M. Marinoni v. The Pelican Mutual Insurance Company of New Orleans.