Case Name: COUSIN v. ST. TAMMANY BANK & TRUST CO.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1919-03-03
Citations: 146 La. 393
Docket Number: No. 23000
Parties: COUSIN v. ST. TAMMANY BANK & TRUST CO.
Judges: O’NIELL, J., adheres to the opinion heretofore handed down that this court has no jurisdiction.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 146
Pages: 393–399

Head Matter:
(83 South. 685)
No. 23000.
COUSIN v. ST. TAMMANY BANK & TRUST CO.
(March 3, 1919.
On Rehearing, Dec. 1, 1919.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 2, 1920.)
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
1. Coubts <&wkey;224(11) — 'Where title to property VALUED AT $2,500 IS IN ISSUE SUPREME Court has jurisdiction.
In proceedings by plaintiff wife to restrain sale of property seized in executory proceedings on a mortgage note, where plaintiff claims as her paraphernal estate the property seized as belonging to her husband, the issue is as to her ownership of the property, and the Supreme Court has jurisdiction of appeal, though petition does not allege any value; an affidavit filed in the district court and made by plaintiff and her husband fixing value at $2,500.
2. Husband and wipe <&wkey;129(5) — Wipe who ASSURES BANK LOANING MONEY SECURED BY MORTGAGE ON LAND THAT LAND IS COMMUNITY PROPERTY CANNOT CLAIM IT AS PARA-PHERNAL ESTATE.
Where husband donated to his wife certain funds and property and she and he, after she had purchased land in question, assured bank that the property belonged to the community and made affidavit that she had never owned any paraphernal property, and the bank, before making loan to husband and taking a mortgage to the property, required the wife to make a donation inter vivos to her husband of the property to be mortgaged to secure the loan, held, that the wife was not entitled to have sale of property seized in executory proceedings on mortgage note restrained.
3. Husband and wipe <&wkey;52 — Defect op REVOCATION OP DONATION.
Granting that donation by husband to wife vested title in her, the donation was revocable at any time (Civ. Code, art. 1749), and the effect of revocation was to restore the rights of the donor as completely as if no donation had ever been made, and even mortgages and other incumbrances and alienations made by the donee were canceled by the revocation.
4.Husband and wipe <&wkey;52 — -Donation by HUSBAND TO WIPE WAS REVOKED MAKING SUBSEQUENT MORTGAGE BY HIM VALID.
Since the property in contest was acquired by the wife with funds arising from the donation to her by her husband, where she later donated a part of it to him he appearing and formally accepting, and he thereupon placed a mortgage upon it in favor of a bank, the effect was to revoke his original donation, at least to the extent of the funds which went to pay for the property, and anything which thei’eafter took place could not operate to the prejudice of the rights- of the bank.
O’Niell, J., dissenting in part.
Appeal from Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany; Pren-tiss B. Carter, Judge.
Action by Mrs. Eugenia Cousin against the St. Tammany- Bank & Trust Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Hiddleston Kenner, of New Orleans, for appellant.
Lewis L. Morgan, and J. Monroe Simmons, both of Covington, for appellee.

Opinion:
O'NIELL, J.
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment dissolving a writ of injunction and rejecting her demand to prevent the sale of property seized in executory proceedings on a mortgage note for $1,740. The executory proceedings were brought against her husband. She claims that the property seized is her separate property, not the property of her husband nor of the marital community. But the property itself is not in contest, except in so far as the defendant bank is attempting to subject it to the payment of the mortgage note. The only matter in dispute, therefore, is the validity of the mortgage held by the defendant bank, the amount of which does not exceed $2,000. This court has jurisdiction in such cases only when the amount in dispute exceeds $2,000, exclusive of interest. Const, art. 85.
The doctrine of the decisions cited in Lhote & Co. v. Church Extension Society, 115 La. 487, 39 South. 502, to the effect that when a third person, claiming the property seized, attempts to prevent execution of the judgment, the issue is as to the ownership of the property seized, and its value is the test of jurisdiction, has no application to this case; because the only contest here is between the St. Tammany Bank on the one side and Mr. and Mrs. Cousin on the other side. He agrees in her contention that the property belongs to her alone, and he testified accordingly. She did not obtain or ask for the authorization of the judge to prosecute the suit, nor did she allege that there was or would be a contest or conflict of interest between her and her husband. The only matter in dispute between the bank on the one side and Mr. and Mrs. Cousin on the other side of this contest is the validity of the mortgage for $1,740. Whether the property seized belongs to Mr. Cousin or to Mrs. Cousin is a question which they do not dispute, and with which the bank is concerned only to the extent of $1,740' — not to' the extent of the value of the property.
It is ordered that the case be transferred to the Court of Appeal, First circuit. Appellant is to pay the costs of this appeal; all other costs are to depend upon the final judgment.