Rolling v. F. de Bordenave & Co.
Rolling v. F. de Bordenave & Co.
Opinion of the Court
One of the defendants, Louise Decuers, who is separated in property from her husband, Louis Decuers, has appealed from the judgment rendered in this cause against her, as one of the parties composing the commercial firm of F. de Bordenave & Co., on the ground that she is not, in fact, a member of said firm.
The power of attorney does not contemplate, expressly or by implication, the formation of a commercial association ; for it does not appear that the appellant was ever a public merchant, or interested in any commercial house; nor is it in evidence that she ever signed the card above mentioned, or took any part whatever in the concern.
From the foregoing facts of the case, we are constrained to say that the agent exceeded his powers, and that his principal is not responsible. C. C. 2966, 2965 ; Reynolds et al. v. Rowley el al., 4 An. 396 ; Grove v. Harvey, 12 Rob. 221; Miller v. The New Orleans Canal and Banking Company, 8 Rob. 236.
It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be, as to the appellant, Louise Lecuers, reversed, and that ours be in her favor, with costs in both courts.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- C. & E. Rolling v. F. de Bordenave & Co.
- Status
- Published