The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P become a surety on an appeal bond relating to a Louisiana judgment rendered against a railroad. P then contracted with D in New York to indemnify P for any loss on the surety. P’s contract for indemnification included D, a New York citizen, and McComb, a Delaware citizen. So if the railroad’s appeal was unsuccessful and P was called upon to pay, Ds would be required to indemnify P. The indemnity was signed and delivered in New York. The appeal failed and P became liable on the surety. P sued Ds for indemnification. D claimed that the bond sued on was executed and delivered by him to P in the State of New York, and without any consideration therefor, and that by the laws of that state it was void, by reason thereof. In New York, the bond was without consideration and invalid. P claimed that by the law of Louisiana the pre-existing liability of P as surety for the railroad company would be a valid consideration to support the promise of indemnity, notwithstanding his liability had been incurred without any previous request from D. This claim is not controverted and is fully supported by the citations from the Civil Code of Louisiana of 1870, art. 1893-1960, and the decisions of the Supreme Court of that State. P sued D in federal court in Louisiana. D got the verdict and P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.