Case Name: Mrs. S. Moussier and Widow A. Courcelle v. F. W. Gustine and C. S. Sauvinet, Sheriff
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1873-01
Citations: 25 La. Ann. 36
Docket Number: No. 3886
Parties: Mrs. S. Moussier and Widow A. Courcelle v. F. W. Gustine and C. S. Sauvinet, Sheriff.
Judges: Justices concurring: Ludeling, Taliaferro, Howell, Wyly and Howe.
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 25
Pages: 36–38

Head Matter:
No. 3886.
Mrs. S. Moussier and Widow A. Courcelle v. F. W. Gustine and C. S. Sauvinet, Sheriff.
An appeal will not be dismissed because the surety on the appeal bond was surety on the injunction bond.
If the bond of appeal fixed by the judge a quo is insufficient for a suspensive, it suffices ior a devolutive appeal.
A married woman can not be sued on the ground that, being shown to be the keeper of a boarding house and therefore a public merchant, no authorization is necessary either from her husband or the court.
Articles 121 and 131 of the Civil Code can not be construed to warrant the conclusion that the carrying on of any other business by a married woman than that of merchandise constitutes her a public merchant.
The words “separate trad^” in the latter clause of article 131 of the Civil Code, declaring that the wife “is considered as a public merchant if she carries on a separate trade, but not if she retails only the merchandise belonging to the commerce carried on by her husband,” refer clearly to the trade in merchandise and not to any other business or pursuit.
When by the terms and conditions of a loase two lessees are bound m solido, a judgment irom the court a qua against them jointly will be set aside, and if the judgment against one of the parties to the lease never had any legal force it remains in full force against the other.
APPEAL from the Eighth District Court, parish of Orleans. Dibble, J.
3. R. Forman, for plaintiffs and appellants. Randolph, Singleton & Browne, for defendants and appellees.
On Motion to Dismiss tiie Appeal.
Justices concurring: Ludeling, Taliaferro, Howell, Wyly and Howe.

Opinion:
Wyly, J.
The plaintiffs injoined the execution of a judgment against them for $1850. The injunction was dissolved with twenty per cent, damages and they have appealed.
The defendants move to dismiss the appeal because the bond is not sufficient in amount; because the surety on the appeal bond is the same person who was surety on the injunction bond, and because the latter is not made party to the appeal.
The appeal was taken by motion and the appeal bond is in favor of the clerk. All parties are therefore before the court.
The appeal bond being for $2000 is ample for a suspensive appeal.
The injunction bond was given to protect the defendants from damages resulting from the injunction, the amount of which decreed by the court is only $370.
That the surety on the injunction bond is the security on the appeal bond is of no consequence; he was not condemned to pay anything and he is not an appellant. 12 La. 383; 2 R. 235.
The motion is therefore denied.