Case Name: Romain Bussieré vs. Elias Williams et als.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1885-04
Citations: 37 La. Ann. 387
Docket Number: No. 9350
Parties: Romain Bussieré vs. Elias Williams et als.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 37
Pages: 387–389

Head Matter:
No. 9350.
Romain Bussieré vs. Elias Williams et als.
In a rule taken by a .judgment creditor against parties holding mortgage rights against the property of his debtor, for the purpose of obtaining the erasure of such mortgages, tile test of tlio .jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is in the amount of the mortgage thus sought to be cancelled, and not in the amount of the judgment, or in the value of the property affected thereby. State ex rol. Bloss vs. ¿fudges. 33 Ann. 1351, affirmed.
An appeal bond, although not signed by the appellant, is sufficient if signed by the surety.
A judgment creditor lias the legal right to remove obstacles preventing the satisfaction of his judgment on his debtors property.
To that end he is authorized in law to proceed by rule against his debtor’s mortgages, pending his execution and before the sale.
APPEAL from the Twenty-sixth District Court, Parish of St. Jolm tlie Baptist. Halm, J.
L. JDePoorter for Plaintiff' and Appellant..
J. D. Augustin, G. A. Baguié, Jules Beine and Gervais Leche, for Defendants and Appellees. , -

Opinion:
On Rule xo Erase Mortoaue.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Poché, J.
Plaintiff, having issued execution on a judgment which he holds against the defendant, in the sum of $350.00, proceeded by rule, contradictorily with the defendant, with the latter's daughter and with the recorder of mortgages, for the erasure of the legal mortgage inscribed on Ms debtor's property, in favor of his said daughter, and amounting to some $4,000.
He has taken this appeal from a judgment discharging his rule, on the ground that it was not the proper proceeding, and that it appeared that the defendant's daughter had a proprietary interest in the property seized under plaintiff's execution.
The motion to dismiss presents two points:
1. That the bond of appeal is not signed by the appellant, but by the security only. The point is not well taken, and has long since been disposed of in our jurisprudence. It is now elementary that the appeal bond is sufficient, if signed by the surety alone. Murell vs. Murell, 33 Ann. 1235, and authorities therein cited.
2. It is next contended that the amount of the judgment in execution being the test of jurisdiction, this Court is clearly without jurisdiction over the matter in dispute.
The effect of the judgment on the rule, if decided in favor of plaintiff, would be the cancellation or erasure of a mortgage exceeding four thousand dollars in amount. The validity vel non of that mortgage is the real matter in dispute between the plaintiff and the holder of the legal mortgage, which the former wishes to cancel, and which the latter seeks to maintain. This question is entirely covered by our decision in the case of the State ex rel. Blossvs. Judges of the Court of Appeals, 33 Ann. 1351. The motion to dismiss is therefore overruled.