Case Name: Teutonia National Bank vs. J. M. Wagner et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1881-05
Citations: 33 La. Ann. 732
Docket Number: No. 6713
Parties: Teutonia National Bank vs. J. M. Wagner et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 33
Pages: 732–737

Head Matter:
No. 6713.
Teutonia National Bank vs. J. M. Wagner et al.
A document annexed, to and made part of the Petition, controls the allegations thereof, in case of variance.
The sureties of the cashier of a bank who, in the very bond signed by them, recognized the legal existence of that corporation, are estopped from denying that the bank had such legal existence at the date of the bond.
The sureties on such bond, though bound in solido with the principal, are several obligors inter seset if the solidarity between themselves is not expressed. They are bound by distinct and separate contracts, though such contracts are evidenced by only one act, the bond. Therefore, the discharge of one of the sureties by the common creditor does not release the other sureties.
The sureties of a bank officer are liable, not only for the acts done by him by virtue of his office, but also for those done under color or by means of his office.
APPEAL from the Fifth District Court, parish of Orleans. Rogers, J.
Kennard, Howe & Prentiss for Plaintiff and Appellee:
Where a bond is given by a cashier of a bank, with sureties who are each bound for a separate amount, and the bond contains a promise on the part of the principal and sureties to pay said amounts to the President and Directors of the bank, and also recites that if the principal faithfully perform his duties as cashier, the bond is to be void, but otherwise of full force and efíect, such bond is, in legal intendment, in favor of the bank, and the bank can maintain an action upon it.
Such a bond is an obligation to pay money, on a certain contingency; the condition is a suspensive one.
Although each surety on such a bond is bound in solió.\o with the principal up to a certain amount, yet the obligations of the sureties towards the bank, and among themselves, are several.
The alteration made in such a bond, by which the name of one of the sureties is canceled, does not discharge the other sureties.
The discharge of one of the sureties on such a bond, does not affect the liability of the other sureties.
In such a contract there is no contribution betweon the sureties. The obligation of each is as distinct as if evidenced by a separate agreement. An alteration or change in the contract of one of the sureties is not an alteration or change in the contract of the others.
The facts of the case discussed, with a view to showing that the sureties are not discharged by any laches on the part of the bank.
The sureties are estopped from denying any of the recitals in the bond, which they have signed.
The sureties are responsible to the bank, not only for the amounts for which the cashier has become liable by virtue of his office, but also for the losses occasioned by him to the bank, under color of or by means of his office as cashier.
T. Wharton Collens, E. Howard Me Caleb and E. W. Huntington for Defendants and Appellants.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Bermudez, C. J.
This is a suit to enforce the liability of J. M. Wagner as cashier, and of the other defendants as sureties on his bond, given in that capacity.
The claim was originally for $7123 47, but, upon the discovery of certain credits, it was reduced to $5878 62, amount of alleged defalcations. The main defendant, Wagner, was not found and made no appearance.
The sureties, at first, pleaded by exceptions, that the petition disclosed no cause of action and that the bond was not furnished in favor of the plaintiff. Those preliminary defenses having been overruled, they pleaded the general issue; but specially, that the bond declared upon, had been altered, after signature, without their consent and that, by the acts of the plaintiff, in discharging three of their co-sureties and, in proving derelict to duty, they have been discharged from all responsibility.
After hearing, the lower court gave j udgment for the plaintiff for $4570 75 with interest and costs against five of the eight sureties, but only up to the amount for which they had respectively signed the bond.
Two of the sureties thus condemned, have appeald from the judgment so rendered; William Bogel and Ed. E. Stockmeyer.
The plaintiff has filed in this Court an answer, asking that an item of $1307 87, not allowed by the lower court, be here decreed in their favor.
The Bank has not appealed from the judgment of nonsuit, as concerns Oertling.
The exception of no cause of action was properly overruled. It is evident that, had the allegations of the petition been proved, on a confirmation of default, the judgment could not have been reversed on appeal. Eor the purpose of the exception, they had to be taken for true.
The petition does not set forth that the defendants are liable in solido to the Bank as co-debtors; but distinctly, that they are each so responsible with Wagner. In explanation, and for greater certainty, there is annexed a copy of the bond, as part of the petition. The bond controls the allegations. 27 An. 224; 18 An. 680; 7 An. 295; 6 L. 276; 14 L. 368; 1 R. 469.
The other defense was likewise properly overruled. On its face, the bond, copy of which had been attached to' the petition, showed that it was given, in as many words, in favor of the plaintiff in the present action, and that Wagner, the principal, was then cashier elect.
That the Bank was not in being at the date of the bond, was not a defense susceptible of being set up by the defendants, who had in the very bond recognized its existence as a living corporation. 28 An. 736; 2 N. S. 672, 678; 10 An. 491; 11 Otto, 192.
The Bank had been organized and existed at the time. It was ready for business, although the authority required to commence such had not yet been received. U. S. R. S. 5133, 5138, 5144, 5168, 5169.