Case Name: C. H. Beigel, Wife of Michael Beigel v. Julius Lange and Henrietta Lange, his Wife
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1867-03
Citations: 19 La. Ann. 112
Docket Number: No. 1245
Parties: C. H. Beigel, Wife of Michael Beigel v. Julius Lange and Henrietta Lange, his Wife.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 19
Pages: 112–112

Head Matter:
No. 1245.
C. H. Beigel, Wife of Michael Beigel v. Julius Lange and Henrietta Lange, his Wife.
When tlie wife brings a suit on a promissory note in her favor, and alleges in the petition that her husband joins in the suit, with no allegation or evidence of a separation of property between them, and no stipulation against a community of acquests and gams, the Court will not presume the authorization of the husband, but, on the contrary, will presume a community between them.
The note being given in favor of the wife, does not make it her separate property; it is still community property.
A PPEAL from the District Court, Parish of Livingston, Ellis, J.
T. G. W. Ellis and .í. W. Addison, for plaintiff and appellee.
Marr & Foule, and Bradley, for defendant and appellant.

Opinion:
Hyman, C. J.
Julius Lange gave his note to Catharine H. Beigel for SI,000. At the time that the note was given she was tlie wife of Michael Beigel.
Sho brought suit against Julius Lange and his wife, to recover of them the amount of the note with interest thereon, and in her petition she alleged that her husband joined in the suit, and assisted and fully authorized her to institute the same.
There was judgment against Julius Lange, condemning him to pay the plaintiff the amount of the note with interest, and the costs of suit. From this judgment ho has appealed.
There was no evidence adduced in tlie lower Court, showing that plaintiff's husband had joined in the suit, or authorized his wife to institute it. There was no evidence that there was any stipulation between Michael Beigel and xilaintiff, that there should not be a community of acquests and gains between them during their marriage, nor that the note sued on was the sexiarate proxierty of xilaintiff. Without such evidence we cannot X>resume that the husband authorized this suit, but ure are to x>resume that there is a community between Michael Beigel and x>laintiff, and that the note sued on, being acquired during their marriage, is community proxierty. See C. C. 2369, 2371.
The note having been given in favor of the wife does not make it the Xiroperty of the wife. It is still community xiroxierty.
The plaintiff's husband, not the plaintiff, has the control of the' note, and she has no right to recover judgment in his favor for the same. O. C. 2373.
Let the judgment of the District Court be annulled, avoided and reversed, and let this suit be dismissed, as to defendant, Julius Lange.