Sterling v. Fusilier

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Sterling v. Fusilier

5 Mart. 442

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedFebruary 15, 1820

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 5 Mart. 442 (Sterling v. Fusilier) 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

Sterling v. Fusilier, 5 Mart. 442 (La. 1820).

Pincite

Opinion

Mathews, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. This case is submitted to us, without aiW argument on the part of the appellee, aPPe^ant having failed to appear on the day appointed for its hearing. J r £ «

The action is against the warrantor of the © title to a slave, describéd in the plaintiff’s peti-r 1 tion, whom he bought from Martin L. Hannie, ’ ⅛ who sold as sole owner, and warranted the title. The answer of the defendant denies any right of action, as set forth by the plaintiff, and also all the allegations in the petition.

The facts agreed upon by the parties, and the evidence spread on the record, fully establish all the material allegations in the petition, viz : that Hannie sold the slave to the plaintiff; that the defendant bound himself to warrant the title, and that the slave was taken from the purchaser by the judgment of a competent tribunal. At the time of the eviction, the vendor was dead, and his representative was called in to warrant and defend the title of his vendee.

Whether the defendant and appellant be con[443]*443sidered as a surety or principal obligor, it is believed that he is responsible to the plaintiff and appellee, in damages. It is true that he was not called to defend the title, according to his contract, in an action of warranty, nor in the action by which the defendant lost the slave. As surety, it is doubtful whether the latter was bound to call him in warranty; because the vendor is rather to be supposed to kuow the means of defence than his surety; Pothier, Contrat de Vente, n. Ml : but admitting that he was entitled to all the privileges of a vendor, the neglect of the vendee, in failing to call him in to defend the suit, has no other effect than to cause the warranty to cease on proof, in the present suit that the warrantor had sufficient grounds or means of defence, to have obtained a judgment in his favor, of which he could not avail himself for want of having been called on. Civ. Code, 365, art. 64. This species of defence has neither been pleaded nor proven ; nor was the exception of the discussion of the property of the principal debtor used as a defence, admitting that the defendant is in the situation of a surety, which would have been useless, as it is agreed that the vendor was insolvent.

it is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and de[444]*444creed that the judgment of the District Court ⅜ be affirmed with costs.

Turner for the plaintiff Duncan for the defendant.

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

Mathews, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. This case is submitted to us, without aiW argument on the part of the appellee, aPPe^ant having failed to appear on the day appointed for its hearing. J r £ «

The action is against the warrantor of the © title to a slave, describéd in the plaintiff’s peti-r 1 tion, whom he bought from Martin L. Hannie, ’ ⅛ who sold as sole owner, and warranted the title. The answer of the defendant denies any right of action, as set forth by the plaintiff, and also all the allegations in the petition.

The facts agreed upon by the parties, and the evidence spread on the record, fully establish all the material allegations in the petition, viz : that Hannie sold the slave to the plaintiff; that the defendant bound himself to warrant the title, and that the slave was taken from the purchaser by the judgment of a competent tribunal. At the time of the eviction, the vendor was dead, and his representative was called in to warrant and defend the title of his vendee.

Whether the defendant and appellant be con[443]*443sidered as a surety or principal obligor, it is believed that he is responsible to the plaintiff and appellee, in damages. It is true that he was not called to defend the title, according to his contract, in an action of warranty, nor in the action by which the defendant lost the slave. As surety, it is doubtful whether the latter was bound to call him in warranty; because the vendor is rather to be supposed to kuow the means of defence than his surety; Pothier, Contrat de Vente, n. Ml : but admitting that he was entitled to all the privileges of a vendor, the neglect of the vendee, in failing to call him in to defend the suit, has no other effect than to cause the warranty to cease on proof, in the present suit that the warrantor had sufficient grounds or means of defence, to have obtained a judgment in his favor, of which he could not avail himself for want of having been called on. Civ. Code, 365, art. 64. This species of defence has neither been pleaded nor proven ; nor was the exception of the discussion of the property of the principal debtor used as a defence, admitting that the defendant is in the situation of a surety, which would have been useless, as it is agreed that the vendor was insolvent.

it is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and de[444]*444creed that the judgment of the District Court ⅜ be affirmed with costs.

Turner for the plaintiff Duncan for the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Mart. 442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sterling-v-fusilier-la-1820.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack