
    Driggs v. Ballard.
    Where a suspensive appeal is allowed to a party, on his giving bond, with surety, in a certain amount, and the surety does not sign the bond, but writes on the back of it r “I am surety for the appellant for costs only on the within appeal bond, but not for the principal,” the appeal must be dismissed for want of a sufficient bond.
    from the District Court of Pointe Coupée, Farrar, J.
    
      Rattiff and Cowgill, for the appellant.
    
      Cooley, for the defendant,
    moved to dismiss the appeal, citing Code of Pract. art. 574, 9 Rob. 39.
   The judgment of the court was pronounced by

Slidell, J,

The defendant obtained an order of appeal, and signed an appeal bond for $175, the amount mentioned in the order of court, in which bond Fisher is named as surety. Fisher did not not sign the bond ; but on the back of the bond his signature appears toa memorandum in these words: “lam security for W. E. Driggs for costs only on the within appeal bond, but not for the principal.” This obligation is too vague and informal to satisfy the requisitions of the Code; and the motion to dismiss must prevail.

Appeal dismissed. 
      
       The judgment was in favor of the defendant for $74, with interest at five per cent a year, for less than five months. A suspensive appeal was allowed to tho plaintiff on his giving bond, with surety, for $175, with the conditions required by law.
     
      
       A decision was rendered at the same time, dismissing, for the same reason, an appeal by the defendant in the case of Van Rennselaer v. Driggs.
      
     