Williams v. Courtney

8 La. Ann. 63
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedFebruary 15, 1853
StatusPublished

This text of 8 La. Ann. 63 (Williams v. Courtney) 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
Williams v. Courtney, 8 La. Ann. 63 (La. 1853).

Opinion

Rost, J.

A motion to dismiss this appeal has been made on the ground that all the parties having an interest, that the judgment of the District Court should [64]*64remain undisturbed, have not been made parties; and also on the ground that no appeal bond, such as the law requires, has been given.

The defendant being sued for an undivided interest in a tract of land, called in warranty his vendors, who appeared and joined in the defence. The judgment below was in favor of the defendants generally. The appeal was granted on motion in open Court, but the bond given does not contain the names of the warrantors expressly, nor any general expression, such as the words “ and others,” or “other parties interested.” None of the defendants except Micagah Gov/rtney, can therefore be considered as parties to the appeal. See the case of Brigham et al. v. Taylor et al., 2nd Annual, 906.

The warrantors are the parties upon whom the loss is to fall in case the judgment should be reversed. They have therefore a direct interest that it should remain undisturbed, and under the uniform jurisprudence of this Court the appeal cannot be sustained. 12 R. R. 203. Guiron v. Bagnerie, 9 L. R. 471. Curry v. Roberts, 12 L. R. 474. Oliver v. Williams, 12 R. R. 183.

The agreement entered into by the counsel of all parties,

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 La. Ann. 63, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-courtney-la-1853.