New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-03-31
THe COUNTS.

~
~ keeu made absolute.
: a ~ suit Of Mrs. Louise Dupont, wife Of
ais;1e TAheanne. VI. the Sun Mutual Incur.
1.ce Compeng. II which 32900 was claimed
~ uroperty alleged 70 hsve been destroyed
81 t6o destruction by fire OF buildin9 n
erred In the sid company, Judge D1oDle
- given Judgment against the company
a.ve.eh District Ceurt- Liability eta sur.
MY Property.
Judge Collens yesterday delivered the
following interesting opinion upon the ABOVE
Tsrtin Carey vs.. T. l.. Maxwell. Sheriff,
- ei--Thore Is . material difference in the
rssceieeI oueration Of the laws relative to
4ha settleueut of the cOnjugal community
and fha dispoeition to be made of the pro-
nortv-betWcen the case whore it 10 the
Ma Who dies, and that in which the has-
hand dies and the wife survives.
In both cases, II is true. the ownership OF
A undividcd half vests in kind in the heirs
~ ~ deceaaed PARTNER, but when the hus-
hahd dies the whole property n admins
fered q IA succession, and his surviving
vife's sl({3e, Is well as his own, may be sold
n ana &S1ree of administration, the wife
faline only her half of the residue there
my s. after all the debts are paid. When
a - other hand, it is the wife who dies;
the efeditors may ignore her the succession,
and aue the husband personally, ne oeing at
Ill evcats liable for the whole OF every DEBT
al tie community, while at the same time
- (the husband) can not dispose OF the
Wifs's share of the property vested in her
hefrs, in order 10 help ~ the debt, though
Tsr hcirs, ~ will o k(us, are liable to
fhoee esma creditors. Ttqngh the marital
oommunlty may have been perfectly
solveaf though tie whole propert. may be
sulRcie1t to ~ An the debtst the hus.
banda undi5sl6d half may not be 80, and
censeqeently, = the creditors choose to
undivided halt, they might ruin him ~
sclline Il eeparately. II is proved that ct
! iu1ac3al aa2e Of an undivided halt,
proporty brings . grea4 deAl less than
what the half would be II the whole were
disposed q at the came sale. The case Of
: husband thus sued, and whose undivided
hall i ssised to pay tho whole, is there.
fore ono Of great Hardship. This case 10 an
instance. Two creditors who have OBJ
rs fun amount Of debts due them by the
1azital partnership which existed between
Hin and his deceased wife, and they have
pted to cell only his undivided half in
- community property.
he contends chat they can not do this,
nd prays for IN Injunction to prevent
them. He also prayS that they be ordered
to sell the whole. At the same time he has
nade the wife's instituted heir party, and
prAys that the order for selling the whole
Is made contradictorily with that heir. No
good reason has been suggested why this
1nlief should not be granted. On the con-
!. hSry. there are many why it should. The
LII s. an equal debtor; was Q witness in
10th cases: was party called in warranty
ia one Of them, and judgment in warranty
was given against him. The existence Of
,the debta, and the fact that they are com
1unity debts, were proved then, and are
now again proved ON this trial against the
heir. 1t is certain that the whole property
= liable for the debt. If the heir wishes to
prevent the sale of his interest, he, can do
90 BY paying his half of the debts, while on
the other hand the husband could not stop
the execution without paying the whole
amount.
J. n. Cass, the instituted heir Of the wife,
has mot contested the husbands right to
this relief. The entire property being
eoixurc. When ut first the Sheriff adver-
fieed the property for sale, he did not, 60
far q appears, interfere to prevent it, and
now, when he is sued, with the Sheriff, to
prevent the sacrifice which the sale Of only
An undivided half would cause, he makes no
afPeekancc OF oeiense. Inc Iudgment creo-
as0ss, s|swa.Iss.u.mg LIZ Hamos. .ac.t con-
-: y. ~ a;rt;1Ss ,at;t;o,, a~S sS"',i
s',0 tS.;- si,o F. ~ IL o.sts
Fey snear snasS y ad Gne cos's.
s5 !, AZ. S ~ ,S,,,,art nv SsfSmit hs-o;r
49,. an: Nnra S 10 ia1x era;rst The d.
e. S ~ e.. Z. eors ~S" that t ~ !.
:..;',..t;,, a-e;. ;s.roJ So naJe ra .met .
ch;S;t;rs ~ She~;ff arT otHer dofapTar*
hsse - ths nrrer rt1 de.cred = - +He ret;
~. - - 49,. ke-:y Sa.s;n. Fhot III n ~
49, = Srs.t;sed IA Eli srt;re ~ so pUR
= ~ ;.sreJ =, AZ mt. - ya J"s.
Ws.SsS ~ I.-*;~ Coror a1S xuan1s
Dyia. =. Hart ~ OK, ~ ,,ri.s A ~
~. . "Ic,,S ~ h.f tte ;,,Jc ~.
~ ~, :. ia Hav ~ ruo enS 1g.anda
peUc =. and thst - eSrrv;n@ I'D e~s",.'
t;oyys ' srj +i.;. ;ndoment into efFact the
s.,s,..;.s,rar+ "a se;d ~ Sa.s ard O.S.. ~.
PET n-oceed Nth e rao.r5 ~ se;d Cass oud
~. ;rto-ss* in .e;1 ,,ro,,er+v aco;,,s+ on" az
cs;-si ,.srtvst,,s SeferSert. {at y'1;ont;@
S~~nd for aauaces he reiected IT, Is
- nr,iered tI,sf. the defsndant. and
rI.srt;tr Ia condemned ennaIiv to nav the
-. e III. s,,;t - f' WIZ
49,. = r. ~. 80.
-. ~. ~.sC.o. -. s.-.s - r.~..l
et ~c 20 slA'- -. s''
ct
itself, has been He'd in the sixth District
Court:
On motion Of Labatt 4 Aroni, OF counsel
for plaintiff, and suggesting to the court
that it has already issued an alias writ OF
possession in accordance with the final de
cision herein rendered, directing c. S. Sau-
vinet, Civh sherif, to execute the same,