Cour de cassation
Concerning the first ground……..
Given that the judgement under attack (Paris, 1 March 1919) is criticised for having found the existence of joint and several liability without proper reasons,thus failing to respond to a specific head of the pleadings;
But given that (1) Article 1202 of the Civil Code, to which the Application for Review refers, is without relevance in this case; (2) it is clear that, pursuant to custom in existence prior to the drafting of the Commercial Code and continued ever since, the Commercial Courts are led to consider that joint and several liability between debtors is justified by the common interest of the creditor whom it incites to contract and the debtors whose credit it increases; and (3) in so doing, the Courts are simply making use of their sovereign powerof appreciation concerning the existence of simple presumptions;
Given that it flows from the findings of the judgement that that the three debtors held to be jointly and severally liable by the judgement at first instance, against which only Robin has appealed, which findings were upheld on appeal as against him, were liable for the same debt, and such debt was, for eachof them, commercial in character;
Given that, (1) by these findings the Appeal Court of Paris justified the joint and several liability which it held to exist, and replied implicitly to the pleadings of Robin on this point; and (2) the criticism made by the Applicationfor Review is therefore unfounded;
FOR THESE REASONS rejects……
This page last updated Thursday, 15-Dec-2005 09:05:51 CST. Copyright 2007. All rights reserved.