
    Crow v. Walsh et al.
    A surety on a twelve-months’ bond does not, by paying it, become subrogated to an equiva lent portion of the judgment under which the property for which the bond was given was adjudicated. He is subrogated only to the rights of the creditor of the bond, acquiring no interest in the judgment.
    
      APPEAL from the District Court of St. Martin, Overton, J.
    
      Grow, appellant, fro se,
    
    contended that by payment of the twelve-months’ bond he became subrogated to the rights of the judgment creditor. C. C. 2102, 2157. 8 Mart. 706. 1 La. 401. 6 La. 63, 474. 11 La. 50. Lewis, on the same side.
    
      Magill, for the defendants.
   The judgment of the court was pronounced by

Eustis, C. J.

In this cnse the plaintiff, who was the surety on a twelvemonths’ bond, endeavors to avail himself of the original judgment under which the property was sold, for which the bond was given, on the ground of Lis being subrogated to the right of the original plaintiff in the suit.

We have had occasion to examine the question as to the extent of the subrogation of sureties in such cases, which we consider as settled by our previous decisions. Trent v. Calderwood, 2 An. 942. Tardy v. Allen, ante p. 66. Old v. Chambliss, ante p. 205. Judgment affirmed.  