Case Name: RUSCA & CUNNINGHAM v. HAMMETT et al.
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1940-03-06
Citations: 195 So. 642
Docket Number: No. 6091
Parties: RUSCA & CUNNINGHAM v. HAMMETT et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Southern Reporter
Volume: 195
Pages: 642–645

Head Matter:
RUSCA & CUNNINGHAM v. HAMMETT et al.
No. 6091.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.
March 6, 1940.
Rehearing Denied April 4, 1940.
Writ of Certiorari and Review Denied April 29, 1940.
J. D. Rusca and Russell E. Gahagan, both of Natchitoches, and B. F. Roberts, of Shreveport, for appellant.
John G. Gibbs, of Natchitoches, for ap-pellees.

Opinion:
TALIAFERRO, Judge.
This motion is based upon the theory that defendant's liability on the note sued on is only one-sixth thereof, which would be less than One Hundred ($100) Dollars; in other words, that the signers of the note are each liable only for his virile part, since, it is contended, the obligation is not solidary. Appellee's contention is that this court is without jurisdiction ratione mátente to entertain the appeal.
The note reads, "I promise to pay", etc. It is signed by five other persons besides Hammett. Under subsection 7 of Sec. 17 of the N. I. L. (Act No. 64 of 1904) the note is a joint and several obligation. Each signer, therefore, is bound for the whole debt. It is an in solido obligation. George T. Bishop, Inc. v. Jones, 17 La.App. 410, 136 So. 101; J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co.. v. Bridger, 133 La. 754, 63 So. 319.
In solido, according to Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed., is defined as follows: "In the civil law, for the whole; as a whole, an obligation in solido is one where each of the several obligors is liable for the whole; that is, it is joint and several."
Civil Code Art. 2082 is pertinent: "When several persons obligate themselves to the obligee by the terms in solido, or use any other expressions, which clearly show that they intend that each one shall'be separately bound to perform the whole of the obligation, it is called an obligation in solido on the part of the obligors."
The motion to dismiss is not well founded. It is overruled.