Case Name: S. W. Hammond vs. Peter Ross et als.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1880
Citations: 1 Mann. Unrep. Cas. 359
Docket Number: No. 7194
Parties: S. W. Hammond vs. Peter Ross et als.
Judges: 
Reporter: Unreported cases heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Louisiana, from January 8, 1877, to April, 1880
Volume: 1
Pages: 359–362

Head Matter:
No. 7194.
S. W. Hammond vs. Peter Ross et als.
Where there is a voluntary joinder of several claimants in the same proceeding and the aggregate of their judgments is sufficient to give the appellate court jurisdiction, and the appeal is from all of them and the bond is given to cover all, one of them cannot, after the appeal is lodged here, separate himself from the others and demand the dismissal of the appeal because his judgment, or his part of the judgment, is for less than the appealable sum.
The surety to an appeal bond must satisfy whatever judgment is rendered on the appeal, and the proceeding against him is summary and by motion, and cannot be defeated on the pretext that the judgment below was not affirmed in its entirety but was amended.
The transfer of the rights of creditors carries with it the right of action to enforce those rights, whether the form of action be by rule, or suit, or otherwise.
Where an appeal bond had been lost or mislaid, the copy of it in the transcript that had gone up to this court may be used as the basis of a suit, without advertising its loss, and this the more where the execution of the bond is admitted, and it is payable to the clerk, and the suit upon it is by those who have right to enforce it.
Appeal from the Fifth District Court of New Orleans. Rogers, J.
Braughn, Buck & Dinkelspiel, and M’Caleb for Plaintiff in rule. Shackleford for Defendant Appellant.
Hammond provoked a concursus and was condemned to pay sundry persons divers sums, and appealed, giving John Thorn as surety. This court reduced the judgment below, a writ of fi. fa. issued and was returned nulla bona, and then the judgment creditors proceeded by rule against Thorn.
On motion to dismiss,

Opinion:
Manning, C. J.
A rule was taken on John Thorn, the surety on an appeal bond, to shew cause why he should, not pay the judgment rendered in favour of Edward Rangustat in the original suit. That judgment was for $351.69. The amount of the appeal bond was $5,500, because there were other judgments in favour of other parties in the same suit.
The appellee moves to dismiss on the ground that his judgment is for less than $500, and therefore, this court is without jurisdiction.
The aggregate of the judgments obtained in the original suit is $1,653.36. The parties in whose favour they were rendered united in the prosecution of their several claims, and proceeded in eoncursu. The appeal bond was given to cover all of them.
InBallio's Heirs m.Prudhomme, two distinct suits were consolidated and the court refused to dismiss, although each was for less than the appealable sum, because both together exceeded it, and the consolidation was with the consent of the plaintiffs. 8 Mart., New Series, 338. The present case is stronger for the appellant. There was a voluntary joinder of the several claimants in the same proceeding, and the aggregate of their judgments was sufficient to give us jurisdiction. The appeal was from all of them, and the bond was given to cover all. One of them cannot now separate himself from the others, and demand the dismissal of the appeal because his judgment or his part of the judgment, was far less than the appealable sum.
The motion is denied.