Case Name: Vincent Battalora v. Albert Erath and als.; and D. S. Ramelli v. Albert Erath and als. (Consolidated.)
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1873-04
Citations: 25 La. Ann. 318
Docket Number: No. 2863
Parties: Vincent Battalora v. Albert Erath and als., and D. S. Ramelli v. Albert Erath and als. (Consolidated.)
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 25
Pages: 318–320

Head Matter:
No. 2863.
Vincent Battalora v. Albert Erath and als., and D. S. Ramelli v. Albert Erath and als. (Consolidated.)
Where the appeal was taken by the plaintiff from a judgmei.t dissolving an injunction without damages, and in his petition of appeal plaintiff prayed for citation against the defendants only 5
Held — Thdt the motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that all the parties in interest-were not made parties to the appeal, must be overruled. It was not necessary that the surety on the injunction bond should have been made a party to the appeal.
Whether there was a consideration or not between the makers and the payee of certain promissory notes, the makers were liable to the indorsees who acquired the notes before * due and gave á valuable consideration therefor.
Whether a blank was filled up, before or after the signing of the notes, can not affect the* indorsees who knew nothing thereof and who acted in perfect good faith.
APPEAL from the Seventh District Court, parish of Orleans. Collens, J.
Mitchel & Brice and Face, Foster & Merrick, for plaintiffs- and appellants. Gustcwus Schmidt, for defendants and appellees.
On Motion to Dismiss.

Opinion:
Ludeling-, C. J.
We are asked to dismiss this appeal on the ground) that all the parties in interest are not made- parties to the appeal.
The appeal is taken by the plaintiff from a judgment dissolving an injunction, without damages. In his petition of appeal he prayed for-citation against the defendants only. It is contended that the surety on the bond should have been made a party to the appeal. We can not imagine why ? For if cited there could be no change made in the judgment, as between the appellees.
In the case of B. Avegno v. S. Johnson, G. Metz subrogated, 22 An.,, it was said that it is "the settled jurisprudence of this court that the surety on an injunction bond is a necessary party to an appeal." The principle was, too, broadly stated that the surety was a necessary party in that case, which was an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff perpetuating an injunction. He had an interest in maintaining that judgment. But it is different in a case where the judgment dissolves the injunction without damages, and the plaintiff alone appeals.
The additional grounds filed on fifteenth November, 1870, came too - late, and can not be considered. 12 An. 745.
It is therefore ordered that the motion be overruled.