Case Name: FLOWER vs. HAGAN & CO.-JONES, APP'T
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1831-02
Citations: 2 La. 223
Docket Number: 
Parties: FLOWER vs. HAGAN & CO.—JONES, APP’T.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 223–226

Head Matter:
FLOWER vs. HAGAN & CO.—JONES, APP’T.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE FIRST DISTRICT.
A co-defendant, although he reside in a different parish, must answer in that where the suit is brought.
Nothing prevents a suit being brought for the surrender of a note not sued on.
The defendants, residing in different districts, were made parties to this suit, the object of which was to obtain the cancelling of a note which the firm of W. & D. Flower had executed to Hagan & Co., and which Jones was attempting to off-sett against a judgment rendered against him at the suit of the Messrs. Flowers, in the parish of St. Tammany.
The petition stated that the note came into the possession of Jones, long after it was due, fraudulently and without consideration. That Hagan & Co. were the real owners, and indebted to the firm of W. & D. Flower. Service of the petition and citation was made upon Jones, who failing to appear, a judgment by default was taken, which was afterwards made final, and from which Jones appealed.
Pierce, for appellant, assigned for error apparent:
1. The appellant is parish judge of the parish of St. Tammany — and should be so known to the judge, and that he had there his domicil. — Article 162 of the ' Code of Practice, says that one must be sued before his own judge, i. e. before the judge of the place of his domicil, and this case does not come within the only exceptions now allowed. —C. P. art. 163, 164, 165, 166, 167.
A co-defendant although Re reside in a different parish must answer in that where the suit is brought.
Nothing prevent* a suit being bro’t for the surrender of a note not sued on.
Eastern District
February 1831.
2. The action is not maintainable — the suit is to have a note returned, which is not sued upon.
Hennen, contra:
1. The appellant, although residing out of the first judicial district, was legally cited and bound to answer, as his co-defendants resided in the first judicial district.
2. He did not decline the jurisdiction of the court.

Opinion:
Martin, J.
delivered the opinion of the court.
Jones, the appellant, assigns as error apparent on the face of the record:
1. That he is judge of the parish of St. Tammany, and should, as such, be known to the judge of the first district, and he has his domicil in said parish. He, therefore, is sueable there only — Code of Practice, 162 — as he does not come within any of the exceptions in the Code.
2. The action is not maintainable, being brought for the surrender of a note, which is not sued on.
The appellant did not plead his commorency. If he had, it would have been of no avail, as his co-defendants were residents of the parish in which the suit was brought.
Nothing prevents a suit being brought for the surrender of a note not sued on.
It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed with costs.