State v. Beard

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Beard

11 Rob. 243

DecidedJune 15, 1845

StatusPublished

This text of 11 Rob. 243 (State v. Beard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Beard, 11 Rob. 243 (La. 1845).

Pincite

Opinion

Mártir, J.

The defendants, an auctioneer and his sureties, are appellants from a judgment by which the State has recovered of them, in solido, the amount of certain auction duties received by the principal.

The claim was resisted on the ground that the debt was no-vated, the treasurer having received from the principal several notes of his on deferred days of payment; and the sureties sought to avail themselves of this circumstance, to urge their discharge, in consequence of the prolongation of the term.

It appears to us the court did not err. The treasurer has authority, indeed, to collect whatever is due to the State, but we are ignorant of any right in him to receive any thing but money, to extend the time of payment, or to novate the debt.

The judgment, however, ought not to have been given in so-lido. The bond is not so, and the act under which it is evidently given, says nothing of solidarity. B. & C.’s Dig., p. 37, No. 2.

It is, therefore, ordered and decreed, that the judgment so far as it concerns the principal, be affirmed With costs; and that it be annulled and reversed, so iar as it concerns the sureties; and that ours be against them for the sum of $258 04| cents, each, with interest from judicial demand.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mártir, J.

The defendants, an auctioneer and his sureties, are appellants from a judgment by which the State has recovered of them, in solido, the amount of certain auction duties received by the principal.

The claim was resisted on the ground that the debt was no-vated, the treasurer having received from the principal several notes of his on deferred days of payment; and the sureties sought to avail themselves of this circumstance, to urge their discharge, in consequence of the prolongation of the term.

It appears to us the court did not err. The treasurer has authority, indeed, to collect whatever is due to the State, but we are ignorant of any right in him to receive any thing but money, to extend the time of payment, or to novate the debt.

The judgment, however, ought not to have been given in so-lido. The bond is not so, and the act under which it is evidently given, says nothing of solidarity. B. & C.’s Dig., p. 37, No. 2.

It is, therefore, ordered and decreed, that the judgment so far as it concerns the principal, be affirmed With costs; and that it be annulled and reversed, so iar as it concerns the sureties; and that ours be against them for the sum of $258 04| cents, each, with interest from judicial demand.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 Rob. 243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-beard-la-1845.