Opinion of the Court.

and had thereby subjected themselves each to pay his proportionate share of the debts of the succession.

This is evident from the following articles of the Revised Civil Code of Louisiana of 1870:

"ART. 1422. The personal action which the creditors of a succession can exercise against the heirs has for its basis the obligation which the heirs are under to discharge the debts of the deceased. This action is modified according as the deceased has left one or several heirs.

"ART. 1423. The heirs, by the fact alone of the simple acceptance of a succession left them, contract the obligation to discharge all the debts of such succession, to whatever sum they may amount, though they far exceed the value of the effects composing it. The only exception to this rule is when the heirs, before meddling with the succession, have caused a true and faithful inventory thereof to be made; . . . for in this case they are only bound for the debts to the value of the effects found in the succession."

"ART. 1425. But though the heirs and other universal successors who have not made an inventory as is before prescribed are bound for the payment of all the debts of the succession to which they are called, even when the debts exceed the value of the property left them, they are not bound in solido, and one for the other, for the payment of the debts."

"ART. 1427. If, on the contrary, the deceased has left two or more heirs, they are bound to contribute to the payment of those debts only in proportion to the part which each has in the succession. Thus the creditors of the succession must divide among the heirs the personal action which they have. against them, and cannot sue one for the portion of the other, or one for the whole debt."

It is plain, from these provisions of the Civil Code, that the suit was brought to enforce against each of the plaintiffs in error a separate and distinct liability, which sprang from the acceptance of the succession of their ancestor, and that no joint judgment could be rendered against them. The petition was framed on this theory, and separate judgments were accordingly rendered against each of the plaintiffs in error.

The

Opinion of the Court.

note of Henderson & Gaines was introduced merely to prove the debt of the succession of Henderson.

The judgments against the four plaintiffs in error, whose writs of error we are asked to dismiss, are all less than the amount which authorizes a writ of error to this court. We have, therefore, no jurisdiction. For it is the settled rule that where a judgment or decree against a defendant, who pleads no counterclaim or set-off, and asks no affirmative relief, is brought by him to this court by writ of error or appeal, the amount in dispute on which the jurisdiction depends is the amount of the judgment or decree which is sought to be reversed. Gordon v. Ogden, 3 Pet. 33; Oliver v. Alexander, 6 Pet. 143; Knapp v. Banks, 2 How. 73; Rich v. Lambert, 12 How. 347; Walker v. United States, 4 Wall. 163; Merrill v. Petty, 16 Wall. 338; Troy v. Evans, 97 U. S. 1; Hilton v. Dickinson, 108 U. S. 165; Bradstreet Co. v. Higgins, 112 U. S. 227; First National Bank of Omaha v. Redick, 110 U. S. 224.

It is also settled that neither co-defendants nor co-plaintiffs can unite their separate and distinct interests for the purpose of making up the amount necessary to give this court jurisdiction upon writ of error or appeal. Rich v. Lambert, ubi supra; Seaver v. Bigelows, 5 Wall. 208; Paving Co. v. Milford, 100 U. S. 147; Russell v. Stansell, 105 U. S. 303; Ex parte Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 106 U. S. 5; Farmer's Loan & Trust Co. v. Waterman, 106 U. S. 265; Adams v. Crittenden, 106 U. S. 576; Hawley v. Fairbanks, 108 U. S. 543; New Jersey Zinc Co. v. Trotter, 108 U. S. 564; Tupper v. Wise, 110 U. S. 398; Fourth National Bank v. Stout, 113 U. S. 684. The cases cited are conclusive of the question of jurisdiction. The authorities, mentioned in the note,* on which the plaintiffs in error rely, were discussed by the Chief Justice in Ex parte Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., ubi supra, and were shown to have no application to cases like the present. The case of Davies v. Corbin, 112 U. S. 36, also cited for the plaintiffs in error, clearly belongs to the same class. The motions to dismiss for want of jurisdiction are, therefore, sustained.

*Shields v. Thomas, 17 How. 3; Market Company v. Hoffman, 101 U. S. 112; The Connemara, 103 U. S. 754; The Mamie, 105 U. S. 773.

Opinion of the Court.

It remains to consider, upon the merits, the writ of error of William H. Henderson, as executor of the last will of Eleanor Ann Henderson.

The plaintiff in error in this case relied for his defence upon Article 3540 of the Civil Code of Louisiana, which reads as follows: "Actions on bills of exchange, notes payable to order or bearer, except bank notes, those on all effects negotiable or transferable by indorsement or delivery, and those on all promissory notes, whether negotiable or otherwise, are prescribed by five years, reckoning from the day when the engagements were payable."

It was ruled by the Circuit Court that the prescription established by this article of the Code of Louisiana was by the law of Kentucky made the limitation in this case, and this was not disputed by counsel for the defendant in error. General Statutes of Kentucky, 1872, ch. 71, art. 4, § 19.

The suit against the executor of Mrs. Henderson was not brought until nearly fifteen years after the maturity of the note of Henderson & Gaines, and nearly twelve years after the death of William Henderson; the obligation on which the suit was based was, therefore, prescribed as against the executor of Mrs. Henderson's will, unless the prescription had been interrupted. But the defendant in error insisted, as already stated, that the prescription had been interrupted by acknowledgments of the debt made by the firm of Gaines & Relf, with which, as she claimed, William Henderson was bound in solido for the payment of the note of Henderson & Gaines. To prove these acknowledgments she introduced evidence tending to show payments made by Gaines & Relf, after the death of William Henderson, of interest on the note. The contention of the defendant in error was, that these acknowledgments were made competent to show an interruption of prescription, as against the present plaintiff in error, by article 3552 of the Civil Code of Louisiana, which provides as follows:

"A citation served upon one debtor in solido, or his acknowledgment of the debt, interrupts the prescription with regard to all the others, and even their heirs."

It is plain that, to make this article applicable to the case of

Opinion of the Court.

the plaintiff in error, it must be shown that Mrs. Henderson, his testatrix, was bound in solido with Gaines & Relf to pay the debt evidenced by the note of Henderson & Gaines, or that she was the heir of her husband, William Henderson, who, at the time of his death, was bound in solido with Gaines and Relf, lately his partners. Counsel for the defendant in error concede, as well they may, that Mrs. Henderson did not become bound for the debt as the heir of her husband, William Henderson. Her liability was that of widow in community, and it was so averred in the petition filed in this case in the Circuit Court.

The only question for decision is, therefore, was Mrs. Henderson, as the widow of William Henderson, bound in solido with Gaines & Relf, by whom the alleged acknowledgments were made, for the payment of the note of Henderson & Gaines? This question must be settled by the law of Louisiana. If it shall turn out that Mrs. Henderson was not bound in solido with Gaines & Relf, then the prescription as to her was not interrupted by any acknowledgments made by Gaines & Relf, and such acknowledgments were improperly admitted in evidence against her.

The articles of the Code bearing upon this question are as follows:

"ART. 2093. An obligation in solido is not presumed, it must be expressly stipulated. This rule ceases to prevail only in cases where an obligation in solido takes place of right, by virtue of some provision of the law."

Such a provision is found in article 2872, which declares that "commercial partners are bound in solido for the debts of the partnership."

"ART. 2082. When several persons obligate themselves to the obligee by the terms in solido, or use any other expressions which clearly show that they intend that each one shall be separately bound to perform the whole of the obligation, it is called an obligation in solido on the part of the obligors."

"ART. 2091. There is an obligation in solido on the part of the debtors when they are all obliged to the same thing, so that each may be compelled for the whole, and when the pay

Opinion of the Court.

ment which is made by one of them exonerates the others towards the creditor.

"ART. 2092. The obligation may be in solido, although one of the debtors be obliged differently from the other to the payment of one and the same thing; for instance, if the one be but conditionally bound, while the engagement of the other is pure and simple, or if the one is allowed a term which is not granted to the other."

These articles make it clear that it is an indispensable requisite to the obligation of debtors in solido that they should be bound to perform the same obligation and the whole of it. Applying this test it is evident that Mrs. Henderson was not bound in solido with Gaines & Relf for the debt evidenced by the note of Henderson & Gaines.

The liability of Mrs. Henderson was based upon and was coextensive with her obligation as a member of the partnership or community between herself and her husband to pay the debts of the community. What this obligation is, is shown by the following articles of the Civil Code:

"ART. 2405. At the time of the dissolution of the marriage all effects which both husband and wife reciprocally possess are presumed common effects or gains, unless it be satisfactorily proved which of such effects they brought in marriage, or which have been given them separately, or which they have respectively inherited.

"ART. 2406. The effects which compose the partnership or community of gains are divided into two equal portions between the husband and the wife, or between their heirs at the dissolution of the marriage."

"ART. 2409. It is understood that in the partition of the effects of the partnership or community of gains, both husband and wife are to be equally liable for their share of the debts contracted during the marriage, and not acquitted at the time of its dissolution.

"ART. 2410. Both the wife and her heirs or assigns have the privilege of being able to exonerate themselves from the debts contracted during the marriage, by renouncing the partnership or community of gains."