Case Name: Marx Weil vs. M. Schwartz
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1899-05-29
Citations: 51 La. Ann. 1547
Docket Number: No. 13,083
Parties: Marx Weil vs. M. Schwartz
Judges: ■Monroe, J., takes no part, as he was not a member of the court, when the case was submitted.
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 51
Pages: 1547–1553

Head Matter:
No. 13,083.
Marx Weil vs. M. Schwartz
Syllabus.
On Motion to Dismiss.
When by order of court a suspensive appeal has been allowed on appellant’s fur-’ nishing bond in an amount fixed by the judge, and bond has been furnished' accordingly, the appeal will not be dismissed because it cannot be sustained as a suspensive appeal.
Though not good as a suspensive appeal, it would still stand as a devolutive appeal. 1 Rob., 324; 3rd Rob., 63 ; 9th Rob., 185; 5th Ann., 360; 2nd Ann., 462; 755 ; 10th Ann., 316; 11th Ann., 687; Succession of Armat, 20th Ann., 320; Succession of Keller, 39th Ann., 223 ; Succession of Bey, 49th Ann., 219 ; Michenor vs. Reinach, 49th Ann., 360; Bank of Minden vs. Lake Bisteneau Lumber Co., 47th Ann., 1432; Colomb & Gondolfo vs. McQuaid, 36th-Ann., 371; Montan & Brothers vs. Whitley, 12th Ann., 175 ; Chaffe vs. Carroll, 34th Ann., 122.
On the Merits.
1st. Collateral Attacks. — The tribunal had jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the persons, and the proceedings were not void. Held : The title was not subject to collateral attack against a Tbona fide purchaser.
2nd. Third Persons in Good Faith.- — The purchaser at a, sale made under the order of the court, is not bound to look beyond the decree recognizing its necessity.
3rd. No Conflicting Interest. — The mother, survivor in community and tutrix of her minor children, in matter of the sale, had a common interest and not a conflicting interest; properly she represented the children.
4th. Payment of a Debt. — The interests of the survivor in community and of the tutrix in the payment of a debt resting on the latter’s property, are not adverse interests.
5th. Under Tutor.- — The court presumes that the under tutor who was present and signed the inventory, had resigned on account of his interest being opposed to the minors’, as another person appears as undertutor in subsequent proceedings.
ON APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Righior, J.
E. Evariste Moise (and E. B. Kruttschnitt of counsel) for Mark' Weil, Plaintiff in Rule and Appellee.
Lazarus & Luce for E. B. Benjamin, Defendant in Rule and Appellant.
Dinhelspiel é Ilart for the Civil Sheriff of the Parish of Orleans, Appellee.
Submitted on motion to dismiss, March 20, 1899.
Opinion on motion to dismiss, April 3, 1899.
Argued and submitted on merits May 20, 1899.
Opinion handed down May 29, 1899.
Rehearing refused June 27th, 1899.

Opinion:
On the merits by Breaux, J.
On the Motion to Dismiss.
The opinion of the court on the motion to dismiss was delivered by
NiopoLLS, O. J.
The plaintiff foreclosed a mortgage note. The .property was sold and adjudicated to E. Y. Benjamin. Benjamin failing to comply with the adjudication, the property was ordered to be resold at his expense.
I-Ie, thereupon sued out an injunction, which being tried in the District Court, resulted in a judgment in favor of Weil and against Benjamin, condemning him to comply with the adjudication, and to ac•cept the deed tendered him by the sheriff, and to pay into the latter'3 hands the amount of the adjudication, to-wit: the sum of five thousand three hundred and forty-five dollars.
Benjamin applied for and obtained an order for-a suspensive appeal. The court fixed the amount of the bond at two hundred and fifty dollars, and it was furnished accordingly.
Appellee moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that tho .amount of the bond is not sufficient to justify a suspensive appeal.
That proposition may be true, but it does not lead up to the dismissal of the appeal. "When by order of court a suspensive appeal has been allowed on appellant's furnishing bond in an amount fixed by the court and bond has been furnished accordingly, it will not be dismissed because it cannot be maintained. Though not good as a susjicnsive appeal, it stands good as a devolutive appeal."
Succession of Bey, 47th Ann., 219; Succession of Armat, 20th Ann., 340; Succession of Keller, 39th Ann., 579; Duperron vs. Van Wickle, 1st Rob., 324; Tipton vs. Crow, 3rd Rob., 63; Jones vs. Frellsen, 9th Rob., 185; Surget vs. Stanton, 10th Ann., 318; Rachel vs. Rachel, XIth, Ann., 687; Michener vs. Reinach, 49th Ann., 360.
The motion to dismiss is hereby denied and the appeal maintained.
Monroe, J., takes no part, as he was not a member of the court, when the case was submitted.