We think the motion to dismiss the writs of error must prevail. The obligation upon which the suit against the heirs of William Henderson was founded was based, not on the note made by him, but upon the fact that they had, without inventory, taken possession of the property of the succession, and had thereby subjected themselves each to pay his proportionate share of the debts of the succession. This is evident from the following articles of the Revised Civil Code of Louisiana of 1870:
'Art. 1422. The personal action which the creditors of a succession can exercise against the heirs has for its basis the obligation which the heirs are under to discharge the debts of the deceased. This action is modified according as the deceased has left one or several heirs.
'Art. 1423. The heirs, by the fact alone of the simple acceptance of a succession left them, contract the obligation to discharge all the debts of such succession to whatever sum they may amount, though they far exceed the value of the effects composing it. The only exception to this rule is when the heirs, before meddling with the succession, have caused a true and faithful inventory thereof to be made; * * * for in this case they are bound only for the debts to the value of the effects found in the succession.'
'Art. 1425. But though the heirs and other universal successors who have not made an inventory as is before prescribed are bound for the payment of all the debts of the succession to which they are called, even when the debts exceed the value of the property left them, they are not bound in solido, and one for the other, for the payment of the debts.'
'Art. 1427. If, on the contrary, the deceased has left two or more heirs, they are bound to contribute to the payment of those debts only in proportion to the part which each has in the succession. Then the creditors of the succession must divide among the heirs the personal action which they have against them, and cannot sue one for the portion of the other or one for the whole debt.'
It is plain from these provisions of the Civil Code that the suit was brought to enforce against each of the plaintiffs in error a separate and distinct liability, which sprang from the acceptance of the succession of their ancestor, and that no joint judgment could be rendered against them. The petition was framed on this theory, and separate judgments were accordingly rendered against each of the plaintiffs in error. The note of Henderson & Gaines was introduced merely to prove the debt of the succession of Henderson. The judgments against the four plaintiffs in error, whose writs of error we are asked to dismiss, are less than the amount which authorizes a writ of error to this court. We have therefore no jurisdiction. For it is the settled rule that where a judgment or decree against a defendant, who pleads no counterclaim or set-off, and asks no affirmative relief, is brought by him to this court by writ of error or appeal, the amount in dispute, on which the jurisdiction depends, is the amount of the judgment or decree which is sought to be reversed. Gordon v. Ogden, 3 Pet. 33; Oliver v. Alexander, 6 Pet. 143; Knapp v. Banks, 2 How. 73; Rich v. Lambert, 12 How. 347; Walker v. U.S., 4 Wall. 163; Merrill v. Petty, 16 Wall. 338; Troy v. Evans, 97 U.S. 1; Hilton v. Dickinson, 108 U.S. 165; S.C.. 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 424; Bradstreet Co. v. Higgins, 112 U.S. 227; S.C.. 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 880; First Nat. Bank of Omaha v. Redick, 110 U.S. 224; S.C.. 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 640.