
    ALLEN vs. PETROVIC ET AL.
    Western Dist.
    October, 1839.
    APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, FOR THE PARISH OF NATCHITOCHES, THE JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT PRESIDING.
    The surety, to entitle himself to the right of discussion, must pursue the formalities pointed out in article 3016 of the Louisiana Code, or his plea will be overruled.
    This is an action against the endorsers and surety on the the following note:
    “$950 68-100. Natchitoches, March 7th, 1837. Twelve months after date I promise to pay to the order of Messrs. Petrovic & Co., the sum of nine hundred and fifty dollars and sixty-eight cents, for value received, payable and negotiable at the branch of the Exchange and Banking Company of New-Orleans, at Natchitoches.
    “ W. B. WEATHERBY.”
    Endorsed “ P. Petrovic & Co.”
    “ I endorse this as security only ; Wm. Long ; security for the final payment of this note, provided this note is protested at maturity. Natchitoches, December 15th, 1837.”
    The petition alleges that Peter Petrovic, John F. Cortes, and John Laplace, were co-partners at the time of endorsing the note, trading under the style and name of P. Petrovic & Co.
    The notary’s certificate showed that the note was duly protested, and notice of protest properly served on all the endorsers.
    There was judgment against the surety and all the endorsers in solido, from which Long, the surety, appealed.
    
      Waters, for the plaintiff and appellee,
    prayed for the affirmance of the judgment with ten per cent, damages, for a frivolous appeal.
    
      Tuomey, for the appellant,
    Long, submitted a written argument, insisting on the right of discussion on behalf of Long; that he was bound only as a surety, and execution should be stayed, as to him, until the property of the principal debtor wag first seized and sold. Louisiana Code, article 3020. Fil-Mol vs. Jones, 8 Martin, 636.
    e S¡e*Tm'dt to the right of maiities pointed out in article hispieavdii be overruled.
   Morphy, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendants are sued as endorsers of a promissory note, and the petition contains the usual averments of demand, protest and notice. The first endorsers, Petrovic & Co., made a general denial, while the other, William Long, t'iat 'le endorsed the note only as security, and pleaded the light of discussion. Plaintiff obtained a iudg-1 , __ jo from which the defendant, William Long, prosecutes this appeal. The surety not having entitled himself to the benefit of discussion, by complying with the formalities required by law, his plea cannot avail him. Louisiana Code, article 3016. The appellee has .prayed for damages in this court, on the ground that this appeal has been taken only for delay. We cannot but view it in the same light.

. It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the .judgment of the District Court be affirmed, with costs, and 'ten per cent, damages.  