Sliman v. Mayor and Board, Palmetto

On Motion to Dismiss Appeal. LE BLANC, J. Defendant-appellee has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal herein on the ground that there is no legal or valid bond of appeal on which the appellant could prosecute his cause before this court, as the appeal bond filed udder the order of the district court was not signed by the surety. The record contains a suspensive appeal bond in which the plaintiff, Alexander Sli-man, is designated the principal, and W. C. Perrault the surety. The bond bears the following signature only: “Alexander Sliman, by W. C. Perrault, Atty.” Obviously, on its face, it could be construed as an obligation on the par.t of the principal only. However, on the reverse of the bond there is an affidavit sworn to by W. C. Perrault before Henry La§,trapes, clerk of court, “that he is well and truly worth the amount for which he has obligated himself, after all his debts have been paid.” The Supreme Court had to deal with the same question that is here presented, in two recent cases, and in both it was held that the affidavit constituted sufficient acknowledgment of the obligation on the part of the surety, and that there could hardly be any doubt of the intention of one who signs such affidavit to bind himself in the capacity in which he is designated in the bond. Smith v. Phillips, Sheriff, et al., 168 La. 406, 122 So. 126; Iowa Cord Tire Co. v. Cheape et al., 162 La. 935, 111 So. 333, 334. In the last case cited, the court refers to the failure of the surety to actually sign the bond as “being, manifestly,, a mere oversight. Act No. 112 of 1916.” The motion to dismiss the appeal is therefore overruled.