Case Name: Georgiana Whan v. Jesse R. Irwin, Tutor, et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1875-12
Citations: 27 La. 706
Docket Number: No. 5294
Parties: Georgiana Whan v. Jesse R. Irwin, Tutor, et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 27
Pages: 706–712

Head Matter:
No. 5294.
Georgiana Whan v. Jesse R. Irwin, Tutor, et al.
This is a suit, by rule, to compel a surety on an appeal bond to pay the remainder of the judgment, which had been affirmed on a suspensive appeal from an order of seizure and sale.
If the position taken be correct, that the proceeding against the surety was premature, as only the mortgaged property had been sold under the writ, and no execution had been issued against the judgment debtor and returned nulla bona, then to require bond for an appeal from an order of sale is an idle form.
Article 575 of the Code of Practice and section 37 of the Revised Statutes of 1871, justify the mode of proceeding in this case. The only execution which it was possible for the judgment creditor to cause to be issued, was issued, and returned not satisfied. The requirements of the law were substantially complied with. The surety knew that, under the executory process, no other property could be sold except that which was included in the mortgage, and when he stopped that by signing the appeal bond, he obligated himself to pay the amount of the judgment for which the writ had issued, if affirmed on appeal.
By reason of the nature af the judgment, no execution could be taken out„ after the return of the order of seizure and sale, which could reach the property of the debtor, and therefore plaintiff had the right to proceed immediately against the surety on the appeal bond. A different interpretation of the law would make of judicial suretyship a mere farce, the commencement rather than the end of litigation.
APPEAL from the Fourth District Court, parish of Orleans. Lynch, J.
Lyman Harding, Samuel P. Blanc, H. Q. Morgan, for plaintiff and appellant. Bentinck Egan, J. Livingston, for defendant and appellee.

Opinion:
Wily, J.
The order of seizure and sale in this case having been affirmed on appeal, with ten percent.'damages, plaintiff caused execution to issue and the mortgaged property was sold, leaving a balance still due by the defendant. The plaintiff then took a rule on Robert Bloomer, surety on the suspensive appeal bond, to compel him to pay the balance due after the enforcement of the executory proceeding.
The court dismissed the proceeding by rule, on the ground that, as plaintiff had no personal judgment against the principal on the appeal bond, no execution had or could issue against him, and until all legal means are exhausted against the principal, his surety can not be made liable. The correctness of this doctrine can not be doubted. 9 La. 229; 10 Rob, 136, 191; Q. P. 596.
The plaintiff, however, contends that as the principal on the appeal bond, Jesse R. Irwin, tutor, has no property belonging to the tutorship, it would be a vain thing to proceed against him, and therefore this proceeding can be maintained under the cases 1 An. 122, 11 An. 124, 20 An. 512, 25 An. 124. The difficulty is, there is no proof in the record showing that the tutorship is insolvent or without means to pay the debt for which the defendant is the judicial security. The facts disclosed in the record do not justify the legal conclusion.
Judgment affirmed.