Case Name: CAPITAL BUILDING & LOAN ASS'N v. CARTER (BATON ROUGE SASH & DOOR WORKS et al., Interveners)
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1927-07-11
Citations: 164 La. 388
Docket Number: No. 28275
Parties: CAPITAL BUILDING & LOAN ASS’N v. CARTER (BATON ROUGE SASH & DOOR WORKS et al., Interveners).
Judges: LAND, J., dissents.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 164
Pages: 387–397

Head Matter:
(113 So. 886)
No. 28275.
CAPITAL BUILDING & LOAN ASS’N v. CARTER (BATON ROUGE SASH & DOOR WORKS et al., Interveners).
July 11, 1927.
Taylor, Porter, Loret & Brooks, of Baton Rouge, and Thatcher, Browne, Porteous & Myers, of Shreveport, for appellant.
Charles A. Holcombe, C. C. Bird, and Cross & Moyse, all of Baton Rouge, for appellees interveners.
Marcus & Corkern, of New Orleans, amici curise.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
OVERTON, J.
After this case was submitted on its merits, and after the opinion on the merits had been prepared, the Baton Rouge Sash & Door Works and the Landry Bros. Lumber Company, who are the appellees herein, filed a joint motion to dismiss the appeal, and also a motion to remand the ease to have evidence adduced on the motion 'to dismiss should the court deem that course necessary.
The motion grows out of the following facts, to wit: After MeKendrick had erected the house, which he partly did with material sold him by the Baton Rouge Sash & Door Works and by the Landry Bros. Lumber Company, he sold the house and the lot upon which the house was erected to plaintiff for cash. Plaintiff, before purchasing, had the mortgage records of the parish where the property is situated examined, and, from the examination, ascertained that there were no building liens of record against the property. However, being informed that th.e house had been very recently erected, and realizing that it was possible that building liens might be recorded against the property after, the purchase of it, and that these liens might be held valid, plaintiff exacted of MeKendrick a bond with good and solvent surety to protect it from any such liens. The Indemnity Insurance Company of North America signed the bond as surety. The Baton Rouge Sash & Door Works and the Landry Bros. Lumber Company now allege that they have ascertained that the surety on the indemnity bond has paid to plaintiff the full amount of their claims with interest and all expenses. Based upon this allegation these companies move to dismiss the appeal herein, averring that because of this payment plaintiff no longer has, any interest in prosecuting this appeal.
We may assume, which we do, that plaintiff has been paid by the surety on the bond the full amount of these claims, still this does not present a valid reason to dismiss the appeal. The furnishing of the bond was merely a personal matter between plaintiff on the one side and MeKendrick and the Indemnity Insurance Company of North America on the other side.' The only purpose of the bond was to indemnify.plaintiff for any loss it might sustain in purchasing the property because of possible building liens against it. Neither of the appellees mentioned has any interest in the bond. The only possible effect of the payment was to place' in plaintiff's hands an amount sufficient to pay these claims, should the property involved herein be held liable for them. Such being the case, the validity of the liens, notwithstanding the payment, still remains an issue in the case, and plaintiff, instead of having the bond to protect it from the liens, has the money paid it by the surety on the bond with which to do so. Because plaintiff is protected against these liens is no reason to dismiss its appeal.
For tjiese reasons the motion to dismiss is denied, as also is the alternative prayer to remand.