
    Robert Seawell v. Key and Johnson.
    One who is a party to a joint and several note cannot be compelled to answer to a suit brought against his co-obligor and himself in another parish from the one in which he is domiciled.
    Where the defendant pleads his domicil in another parish, and the plea is sustained, the plaintiff cannot, after appealing the case, have the appeal dismissed at the defendant’s costs, because the defendant has subsequently voluntarily answered to the merits in the case.
    APPEAL from the District Court of Ascension, Randall, J.
    
      J. A. Man_ ning, for plaintiff.
    
      C. A. Johnson, for defendant.
   The judgment of the court was pronounced by

Slidell, J.

Suit was brought against the defendants in the District Court for the parish of Ascension upon their joint and several promissory note. It was alleged in the petition, that Johnson resided in that parish, and Key in the parish of Lafourche Interior. Key excepted to the jurisdiction. The exception was properly maintained. The plaintiff took an appeal, and now moves the dismissal of his appeal at the costs of the appellee, upon the ground that since the appeal was taken, ICey has pleaded to the merits in the court below, and thus voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court for Ascension. Key had a right to except, and the plaintiff had aright to appeal from’the judgment sustaining the exception. After the appeal was taken, Key had a right, if the plaintiff assented, to waive his privilege of being sued at his domicil, and join issue in the cause. But his doing so is obviously no reason for mulcting him in the costs of an appeal taken by his adversary from a judgment lawfully rendered in the appellee’s favor. The appellant does not question the correctness of the judgment; and as he asks a dismissal, we shall grant it at his own costs.

It is therefore decreed, that the appeal be dismissed, at the costs of the appellant,  