Case ID: la_14/html/0250-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Bullard, J.,\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BLOIS, TUTOR, ETC., AND EMILIE DEMOURELLE vs. YARD & BLOIS’S SYNDICS.
    Eastern Dist.
    
      January, 1840.
    APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, JUDGE BUCHANAN PRESIDING.
    Creditors having claims against property surrendered by the insolvents, will not be permitted to litigate their demands separately against the syndics, but will be required to cumulate them with the insolvent proceedings.
    In this case, Yard & Blois having made a surrender of their property, syndics were appointed by the creditors. Thomas Blois, one of the insolvents, as tutor of his minor son, claimed to be a privileged creditor, for a large sum, on the property surrendered ; and also his second wife, Emilie Demourelle. They each instituted separate suits against the syndics, who denied their right to recover. The wife was declared to have a privilege, and the syndics appealed.
    The case of Blois, tutor of his son, was also submitted to the court, on the question of privilege alone, which was decided in the negative, and the plaintiffs appealed.
    
      Carter, for the plaintiffs.
    
      Lockett, contra.
   Bullard, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

In these two cases, the plaintiffs, being the wife and pupil of one of the firm of Yard & Blois, sue the syndics as privileged creditors. The facts are set forth vaguely, and any judgment which this court might pronounce, would be hypothetical. The other creditors are not before us, and the rank of the plaintiffs can only be settled contradictorily. The proceeding, in our opinion, is irregular, and these suits ought to have been cumulated with the proceedings of Yard & Blois vs. Their Creditors, and the amount due the plaintiffs, as well as their relative ranks, as creditors, ascertained in the usual way, on an opposition to the tableau of distribution.

It is, therefore, considered by the court, that the two judgments be reversed; the appellees paying costs of the appeal respectively. And it is further ordered, that these cases be remanded to the District Court, and cumulated with the proceedings in the case of Yard & Blois vs. Their Creditors, wiLh a view to further proceedings, according to law.