Case Name: John T. Prude vs. R. C. Morris and J. F. Lucius
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1886-10
Citations: 38 La. Ann. 767
Docket Number: No. 189
Parties: John T. Prude vs. R. C. Morris and J. F. Lucius.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 38
Pages: 767–769

Head Matter:
No. 189.
John T. Prude vs. R. C. Morris and J. F. Lucius.
There can be no contract of sale without a fixed price. Where the consideration of a con - tract called hy the parties a sale, is that the transferee of the property shall settle a certain debt of tbe vendor on the most advantageous terms, without any sum being named, and the transferee takes possession of the property and settles the debt and records his title, though the contract cannot he regarded a sale, yet a creditor of the vendor or transferor, who seizes the property, must first pay out of the proceeds to the transferee in said contract, in possession, the amount that he, the transferee, had paid in settling the debt of the transferor or vendor.
APPEAL from tbe Eleventh District Court, Parish of Sabine. Pierson, J.
Pugh & Goss for Plaintiff and Appellee.
J. F. Smith for Defendant and Appellant.
Evidence which tends to show the intention of the parties, and to show the real consideration in a contract of sale, is clearly admissible.
Although the vendor intended to defraud his creditors, if the real vendee was not a party to such fraud, the sale, as to him, cannot be annulled. 26 Ann. 467; 34 Ann. 883; ID L. 594.
In a revocatory action it must he shown that tbe vendor was insolvent, or was not possessed of sufficient property to pay bis debts at the time of the transfer. 28 Ann. 454.
The payment of a price less than that stipulated in the aet of sale does not make the sale simulated. 19 Ann. 53.
Where the defendant in his answer avers that the purchase was made for a “good and sufficient consideration,” and shows that the sale covered an actual contract to secare tbe payment of a just debt, the actual contract will he enforced. ‘ 32 Ann. 95; 31 Ann. 348 ; 30 Ann. 966»

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Todd, J.
This is an action in declaration of simulation, in which the plaintiff, an alleged creditor of the defendant Monis, seeks to have declared simulated and void a conveyance of certain property described in the petition, from Morris to his co-defendant, Lucius.
There is a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the matter in dispute is under the lower limit of the jurisdiction of this court.
It is true that the debt sued for is under $2000, but the property embraced in the alleged sale, according to the pleadings and the estimates by several witnesses on the trial, exceeds that sum; and this' latter fact or consideration, determines the question of jurisdiction in favor of the demand in suit.
The motion to dismiss is therefore denied.