Case Name: VIGUERIE v. VIGUERIE et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1913-04-28
Citations: 133 La. 406
Docket Number: No. 19,791
Parties: VIGUERIE v. VIGUERIE et al.
Judges: PROVOSTY, J., dissents.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 133
Pages: 405–415

Head Matter:
(63 South. 89.)
No. 19,791.
VIGUERIE v. VIGUERIE et al.
(April 28, 1913.
On Application for Rehearing, June 30, 1913.)
(Syllabus by the Court.)
On Motion to Dismiss.
1. Appeal and Error (§ 382*) — Appeal Bond — Penalty — Determination — Jurisdiction.
Where a sequestration is dissolved, and a judgment rendered nonsuiting the plaintiff, and a suspensive appeal is taken, the judge may fix the amount of the appeal bond, and it need not be 1% times the value of the goods which have been sequestered.
LEd. Noté. — Eor other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2036-2041; Dec. Dig. § 382.*]
On the Merits.
2. Husband and Wipe (§, 43*) — Contracts— “Pledge.”
The pledge, under Act No. 66 of 1874, given by a husband in favor of his wife, must have as its basis the loan by the wife to the husband of money for the production of his crop, arid this constitutes a contract between husband and wife.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Husband and Wife, Cent. Dig. § 226; Dec. Dig. § 43.* For other definitions; see Words and Phrases, vol. 2, pp. 1513-1534; vol. 8, pp. 7615, 7616.]
3. Husband and Wipe (§ 43*) — Contracts— Paraphernal Funds — Advancement.
A contract between a husband and wife is an absolute nullity, and a wife cannot acquire any rights against her husband by advancing or lending him her paraphernal funds to make his crop. While the wife owes assistance to her husband, the law never contemplated that such assistance should consist in lending him her money, and taking a pledge on his crop, like any mere money lender.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Husband and Wife, Cent. Dig. § 226; Dec. Dig. § 43.*]
4.Agriculture (§ 11*) — Lien—Advances.
As relates to the general privilege with regard to the act of 1874 (N. C. C.), one may have a privilege on the crop, provided he (the lender) is authorized to acquire a privilege.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other 'cases, see Agriculture, Cent. Dig. §§ 15-30; Dec. Dig. § 11.*]
5. Husband and Wife (§ 205*) — Action by Wife Against Husband — Grounds.
During the pending of the marriage, the wife cannot sue her husband, except for the causes and under the conditions enumerated and provided for under article 2446 of the Civil Code.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Husband and Wife, Cent. Dig. §§ 744, 748-755, 970; Dec. Dig. § 205.*]
6. Husband and Wife (§, 205*) — Action by Wife Against Husband — Grounds—Statutes.
The causes for which a wife may sue her husband, enumerated in article 2446 of the Civil Code, are not merely illustrative, but are absolutely exclusive. Unless the action of the wife falls clearly within one of the exceptions mentioned therein, her suit will not be maintained.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Husband and Wife, Cent. Dig. §§ 744, 748-755, 970; Dec. Dig. § 205.*]
7. Husband and Wife (§ 205*) — Action by Wife Against Husband — “Restitution and Enjoyment of Paraphernal Property.”
A suit by a wife to recover the amount of a loan made to her husband, and to enforce a lien on his crop, created by a pledge under Act No. 66 of 1874, is not such a suit “for the restitution and enjoyment of her paraphernal property” as is contemplated by article 2446 of the Civil Code.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Husband and Wife, Cent. Dig. §§ 744, 748-755, 970; Dec. Dig. § 205.*]
8. Sequestration (§ 18*) — Claim by Third Person — Intervention.
The law abhors a multiplicity of actions, and as the property sequestered in this suit in the hands of the Sugar Planters’ Storage & Distributing Company had already been sequestered in another suit, and was in the hands of the Sugar Planters’ Storage & Distributing Company because it had been bonded by it, the plaintiff in this suit, if she had a cause of action, should have intervened in the other suit, and asserted her rights against all the parties who were claiming the property in that suit. The law would not permit the plaintiff to entirely ignore the other suit, and take the property away, in this suit, from the intervener in the other suit, who held it under a forthcoming bond, and was, therefore, liable to the court for an accounting for the property.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Sequestration, Cent. Dig. §§ 38-41; Dec. Dig. § IS.*]
9.Sequestration (§ 20*) — Bond — Action Against Surety.
Surety on sequestration bond cannot be proceeded against, except contradictorily with him, except as relates to the surety on the sequestration bond.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Sequestration, Cent. Dig. §§i 42-49; Dee. Dig. § 20.*]
Appeal from Twenty-Third Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Mary; T. M. Milling, Judge.
Action by Mrs. Ernestine L. Viguerie against F. C. Viguerie and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.
Motion to dismiss denied. Judgment affirmed.
Emmet Alpha and Charles A. O’Niell, both of Franklin, for appellant. Foster, Milling, Brian & Saal, of Franklin, for appellee, Sugar Planters’ Storage & Distributing Co.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss the Appeal.
BREAUX, C. J.
The grounds are that plaintiff sequestered a number of barrels of molasses of her husband.
The creditor of plaintiff's' husband, who had the molasses in his possession, under a forthcoming bond, filed an exception to dissolve the sequestration, which was sustained, and the sequestration dissolved and the property delivered to the Sugar Planters' Storage & Distributing Company, plaintiff in motion to dissolve.
Mrs. Ernestine L. Viguerie, plaintiff in the suit in which the writ of sequestration was issued, obtained an order of suspensive, and in the alternative, of devolutive appeal. The court fixed the bond on either appeal at $100.
The property sequestered is worth about $3,000.
The complaint is that the amount of the.bond was not sufficient, and should have been fixed in the amount required, by the Code of Practice.
This motion has no merit.
The question was thoroughly considered in Fitzpatrick v. Letten, 123 La. 754, 49 South. 494, 17 Ann. Cas. 197. We held that the court has discretion in fixing the amount of a bond if plaintiff's action is nonsuited, and defendant not condemned to 'pay anything.
See, also, on the same subject, Day v. Bailey et al, 116 La. 961, 41 South. 223.
Motion overruled.