George T. Bishop, Inc. v. Jones

• Decision Date: 16 July 1931
• Docket Number: 3671
• Citation: 136 So. 101,17 La.App. 410
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
• Parties: GEORGE T. BISHOP, INC., v. JONES

136 So. 101

17 La.App. 410

GEORGE T. BISHOP, INC., v. JONES

No. 3671

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Second Circuit, Second Division

July 16, 1931

Appeal from First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo. Hon Robert Roberts, Judge.

Action by George T. Bishop, Incorporated, against A. Wyatt Jones.

There was judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appealed.

Judgment affirmed.

Dimick & Hamilton, of Shreveport, attorneys for plaintiff appellant.

Foster Hall, Barrett & Smith, of Shreveport, attorneys for defendant, appellee.

OPINION

STEPHENS, J.

The plaintiff sold an automobile to the defendant who executed his note in part payment thereof. A short time thereafter the defendant transferred the automobile to one R. B. Leavell, with the agreement with the plaintiff and Leavell that the latter would assume the note. Pursuant to said agreement Leavell indorsed the note under a printed form on the back of it which bound "each and all of the indorsers herein," jointly and severally to guarantee the payment, etc.

Some time after the purchase of the automobile from the defendant by Leavell, the holder and pledgee of the note, the Motor Finance Company learned that it had been wrecked in Texas, where Leavell resided. As the note was secured by a chattel mortgage on the automobile, the finance company sent S. Winkler, their representative, to Texas to see Leavell, and incidentally the wrecked car. Negotiations between the two resulted in an acceptance by the finance company of $ 50 and the automobile in settlement of the note. The evidence of the agreement is in writing and reads as follows:

"This is to certify that I have received $ 50.00 and one Dodge roadster in settlement of the note of R. B. Leavell, which is held by the Motor Finance Company.

"(Signed) Motor Finance Co.,

"S. Winkler."

The plaintiff instituted this suit against the defendant to recover $ 284.30, the balance due on the note.

The defendant answered admitting the execution of the note, but averring that he was released from the obligation by the release of his co-debtor, in solido, Leavell.

Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant rejecting the demands of plaintiff, and the plaintiff appeals.

In solido is defined in Black's Law Dictionary (2d Ed.) page 608, as follows:

"In the civil law, for the whole; as a whole, an obligation in solido is one where each of the several obligors is liable for the whole; that is, it is joint and several. "

Clearly therefore, if Leavell expressly agreed by the terms of the indorsement to bind himself jointly and severally, he became solidarily liable with the defendant, the maker of...