Case Name: W. B. Scott v. G. C. Bogart and S. Toby
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1859-04
Citations: 14 La. Ann. 261
Docket Number: 
Parties: W. B. Scott v. G. C. Bogart and S. Toby.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 14
Pages: 261–263

Head Matter:
W. B. Scott v. G. C. Bogart and S. Toby.
A cessio bonorum in this State is not a peremptory bar to a suit upon a judgment rendered contradictorily with, the ceding debtor in anothor State after the cession has been acceptedhoro, even though the debt upon which the foreign judgment was obtained was put upon the debtor’s hilan.
In those States where tho common law prevails, when a commercial firm is sued, it is necessary that process should be served on each member of the firm, and. effect will not be given in ouv courts to a judgment there rendered against one of the members who was not served with process and made no appearance in the suit.
from the Fifth District Court of New Orleans, Eggleston, J.
/. for and Durant á Hornor and & Martin, for defendants.

Opinion:
Merrick C. J.
The majority of the court adopt the opinion prepared in this case by Mr. Justice Spofford before his resignation. It is as follows :
SrorroRD, J.
This suit is based exclusively upon a judgment purporting to have been rendered in tho Court of Common Pleas for the city and county of New York on the 2d October, 1855.
Both defendants excepted to the suit, upon the alleged grounds that on or about the 17th Feb. 1855, they made a cessio bonorum, to their creditors and obtained a final judgment of discharge in the Sixth District Court of New Orleans, where the present suit was brought; they further alleged that plaintiff's claim was put on their bilan, and that one of the plaintiff's being a resident of New Orleans had notice thereof.
The exceptions were sustained and the suit dismissed by the District Judge, who says he felt constrained to this course by the authority of the case of the Northern Bank of Kentucky v. Squires, 8 An. 318.
But there is a peculiar feature in this case which the District Judge appears to have overlooked. x
The suit is upon a foreign judgment. The plaintiffs do not seek to recover upon the original cause of action, but upon the judgment in which it has been merged. This judgment was obtained long subsequent to the Louisiana cession and the alleged discharge there under. If this discharge was a bar to the original demand, they should have pleaded it in the New York court where that demand was litigated.
A Louisiana cession is not a peremptory bar to a suit upon a judgment rendered contradictorily with the ceding debtor, in another State, after the cession has been accepted here, even though the debt upon which the foreign judgment has been obtained was put upon the bilan.
It is, therefore, ordered and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be avoided and reversed, the defendants' exceptions overruled, and the cause remanded to be proceeded in according to law, the costs of this appeal to be paid by the defendants and appellees.