Brouillette, Harold J.

English

Louisiana State University: DigitalCommons @ LSU Law Center

Louisiana Law ReviewVolume 15 | Number 2The Work of the Louisiana Supreme Court for the1953-1954 TermFebruary 1955Civil Code and Related Subjects: MandateHarold J. BrouilletteThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted forinclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact kreed25@lsu.edu.Repository CitationHarold J. Brouillette, Civil Code and Related Subjects: Mandate, 15 La. L. Rev. (1955)Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol15/iss2/12WORK OF THE SUPREME COURTmunity property standing in her name was held invalid underthe court's previous interpretations of Article 2334, as amendedby Act 186 of 1920. A strong dissent in the creditor's interestunder the facts of the case is registered on equitable groundapart from the rule stated above.PARTNERSHIPHarold J. Brouillette*Only two cases in the 1954-1955 term involved the law ofpartnership. In Parker v. Davis1 the court recognized the juris-prudential rule that one partner cannot bring suit against anotheron matters pertaining to the partnership until after its dissolu-tion, and then for the limited purpose of getting a final settle-ment. But the facts rendered that rule inapplicable, the courtfinding that the transaction giving rise to the suit was indepen-dent of the partnership.Succession of Jurisich2 was decided by a determination ofthe meaning of "book value." The partnership agreement pro-vided that upon the death of one of the partners, the survivingpartner could buy the interest of the deceased "at its then bookvalue." The surviving partner tendered one-half the value ofthe business according to the figures on its books. The booksdid not include a good will account and the heirs of the deceasedpartner contended that good will should nevertheless be takeninto consideration in evaluating the business. The court rejectedthis claim and cited much authority in holding that book valuemeans what its name says-value as shown on the books, andthat the clear words of the agreement could not be avoided.MANDATE'Harold J. Brouillette*Bourg v. Hebert' was the only case of the term involving thelaw of mandate. The validity of a mineral lease depended uponthe authority of certain substituted agents who had granted it.* Member, Louisiana Bar.1. 225 La. 359, 72 So.2d 877 (1954).2. 224 La. 325, 69 So.2d 361 (1953).* Member, Louisiana Bar.1. 224 La. 535, 70 So.2d 116 (1953).19551LOUISIANA LAW REVIEWThe existence or absence of this authority depended upon theprovisions of a long and detailed agreement. The court foundthe authority lacking and citing Article 3007 as a basis, said "it iswell settled that an agent has no power to substitute another toperform duties of his mandate unless expressly or impliedlyauthorized to do so by the principal."'2SECURITY DEVICESJoseph Dainow*SURETYSHIP"The surety who has paid the debt, has his remedy againstthe principal debtor . . . ."' In connection with his general rela-tionships and responsibilities the surety may also incur otherexpenses (apart from principal and interest, and formal legalcosts), and the extent of permissible recovery is the questionwhich was the issue in Standard Accident Insurance Co. v. St.Romain.2 As a result of complaint about performance of workunder a plumbing contract and suit filed against the plumbingcontractor and his surety, the latter incurred certain expensesfor telephone, telegram, attorney and adjuster, in the amount of$167.03. After due examination of the trouble (seepage withinthe building), the necessary corrections were made, and thebuilding owner had its suit dismissed as having been filed inerror because it agreed that the plumbing contractor's workhad been properly performed and that the trouble had beendue to other people's mistakes. In the present case the trialcourt and the court of appeal gave judgment for the suretyagainst the principal, and it is surprising that it was necessaryfor the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in this case in orderto correct an oversight of the lower court.It goes without saying that, as long as there is nothingcontrary to public order or a prohibitory law, the surety andprincipal can stipulate in their contract what will be theextent of the surety's indemnification against the principal.Sometimes this is for "any and all liability, damages, loss, costs,2. Id. at 554, 70 So.2d at 122.* Professor of Law, Louisiana State University.1. Art. 3052, LA. CML CODE of 1870.2. 224 La. 382, 69 So.2d 508 (1953).[VOL. XV

Civil Code and Related Subjects: Mandate

https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2219&context=lalrev

Civil Code and Related Subjects: Mandate

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Louisiana State University: DigitalCommons @ LSU Law Center