The New Orleans Democrat. (New Orleans, La.) 1875-1876, 1876-04-14
COMMUNITY PROPERTY.


important Dec's'On VI tine supreme COtrl
Of Louisiana.
Supreme Court OF the State OF Louisl
ana, Clerks Ofice, New Orleans, April
10, 1S76.-Mrs. Bertha Whiteman. wife
etc, vs. q. IeBlanc.-Appeal from the
Fifth District Court, parish Of East
Baton Rouge, No. 6188.
Mr.. Justice WHY delivered the opin-
ion and decree Of the Court ia the words
and figures following, to-wit In this
case the question is,. can a creditor OF g
community seize the buildings and
other improvements placed by the COM
property Of the wife, and sell the same,
previous to a dissolution OF the commu-
nifty, separate and apart from the land,
whereon they are situated. The court
below held that he could and plaintiff
appeals. We think the court erred.
The buildings and improvements at
tached to the plantation constitute q
sold separately. tHevlsed Code, AGA,
5O4; 81 A., 324 "a A., 227 % A., 749, 25
A., 434; rs A., 349.] When the separate
property Of the wife has been Increased
or improved during marriage, the hus-
band or his heirs shall be entitled to the
reward OF one-haK Of the value Of the
increase on the Aneliorations, IL it be
proved that the increase Of the amelio-
rations be the result OF the common
labor, expenses Or industry. Revised
It capnot be controverted that under
the spirit OF this article buildings and
other improvements erected by the
spouses, during the marriage, on the
hereditary property OF either. belong
necessarily at the dissolution OF the
community to the owner OF the soil, In
this sense, that he may keep them and
that he owes to the other spouse the re-,
compense OF one-half OF the value Of
the increase Oh, sameliorations, to be as
certained byran estimation Of the value
which such improvements have add.
Zacharie. 8 f., is24. Rob. 27S, 6 A. ga.
Whatever right 6iels Of the .spolIses
may have to claim n recompense from
the other, for funds OF the community, 4
employed for, tho separate benefit and
advantage Of such Spouse, either In the
payment Of HIS or her debts, contracted
anterior e the marriage, 9f tn the ln.1
tary property Of sdch SPOUSE. this
right can only be exercised at IRE dis
solution OF the community. 10 A., 300.
Until the dissolution Of the commu-
nifty the wife owes nothing lot the aug
mentation Of the value Of her beredt-1
tary, property by the common labor, OK
pense or industry, and at the dissolu-
ton she Will not owe for the costs OF
each piece OF the improvement. but
OF the hereditary property resulting
from the improvements erected during
marriage. hAHur0nB +ra N
As the buildings, seized by defendants,
do not belong to the cUmmunity, nor
the costs thereof, but To- plaintiff, the
owner Of the soil, subject to the pay
ment at the dissolution Of. the commu-
nifty Of the enhanced value Of her heredi-
property, by reason OF said i'm
mon labor, expense or industry, we
think the court erred in d%issolving the
sued out by plaintiff. Her
property sconn0tf be sold lUr the peyment
the debts of her husband Or The COM
~,
The case OF Dominguez VS.. Lee, II IT,,
l95. which recognizes the right OF a COM
creditor to sell the buildings
erected on the hereditary property Of the
he soil, is not supported by the case OF
Frecique vs. Hopkins, 4 N. s., 212, to
which It refers, nor doesiit acoorTi with
he textual provisions OF the articles OF
he Code TO which we have referred, and
he subsequent decisions Of this court,
specially the decision OF Kelly vs.. !
10 A., v308. 45si,.uGt. -ln
All that which becomes tinted to Or
Incorporated with the property belongs +
the owner Of such property, and the \,
ownership OF the soil carries with it the
ownership Of all that Is above and under
t. 4 Revised Code, articles 504, sos. + EH
It is therefore ordered that the judg4
nent herein be annu1lcd, and 1t Is
that the injunction herein be {
,erpetuated, with costs Of both courts.