Case ID: la-ann_22/html/0243-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Howe, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 1883.
    E. Reilly & Co. v. Henry Rodewald & Co.
    The wife, having purchased property with her own paraphernal funds, and administers it independently of her husband, is entitled to have a judicial mortgage resulting from a judgment against her husband set aside, by rule, in so far as it operates as an incumbrance on her separate paraphernal property.
    APPEAL from Second District Court, parish of Orleans. Thomas, J.
    
      T. Gilmore and J. Magioni, for plaintiffs and appellants. William II. Sunt, for defendant and appellee.
   Howe, J.

The case now before ns arises upon a rule taken by Mrs. Eliza J. Rodewald, the appellee, on the recorder of mortgages and upon the plaintiffs, E. Reilly & Co., to obtain tbe erasure of a judicial mortgage, so far as tbe same affects what she alleges to be her separate and paraphernal property. The mortgage results from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs against the husband of the appellee. The rale was made absolute and tbe plaintiffs bave appealed.

An examination of tbe record has satisfied us, as it did the judge a quo, that the property in question was purchased by Mrs. Rodewald “ out of her own paraphernal funds,” as stated in her act of purchase —that those funds were ample to make the acquisition, and that she administered them independently of her husband. It results therefore that the property thus acquired is her paraphernal property, and that the judgment of plaintiffs against her husband should not he permitted to incumber it. See succession of Wade, 21 An. 343, and cases there cited.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment appealed from be affirmed, with costs.