
    5082.
    (Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans).
    FRED HINDERER vs. CARONDELET REALTY CO., ET AL.
    1. When several persons have become sureties for the same debt, . each of them primarily is individually liable for the whole of 'the debt, but this obligation is subject to the right to claim a division.
    2. The exception of division is a peremptory one which must be pleaded specially, and, until this right is exercised, the obligation is solidary.
    3. The issues of facts are resolved against the defendants.
    Appeal from the Civil District Court, Division “E.”
    Merrick & Lewis, for plaintiff and appellee.
    A. D. Danziger, for defendants and appellants.
   DUFOUR, J.

The plaintiff sues the defendants on the following clause of a written contract:

“It is further understood that the said Pailet, individually and on behalf of the Carondelet . Realty Co., guarantees to the said Hinderer the payment of the above mentioned'rents up to October 1, 1908, of the premises 124-126 Carondelet Street.”

The answer was a general denial, and from a judgment against them in solido the defendants appeal. The plaintiff did not answer the appeal.

The amount is not disputed and the complaint made here is that the interest .should not run from October 1, 1908, and the judgment should not be in solido.

We find no error in the judgment.

The interest runs from the date the last note became due and is really less than might have been allowed.

The defendants were sureties for the same debt, primaíly Hable in solido, they renounced the benefit of division by not demanding it when sued.

November 7, 1910.

Rehearing refused December 5, 1910.

Revised Civil Code, 3049; 4 An. 273; 50 An. 1281. The proof sustains the judgment. Judgment affirmed.  