Case Name: A. Lehman & Co. vs. P. N. Coulon et als.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1901
Citations: 105 La. 431
Docket Number: No. 13,825
Parties: A. Lehman & Co. vs. P. N. Coulon et als.
Judges: Blanci-iard, J., concurs in the decree.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 105
Pages: 431–436

Head Matter:
No. 13,825.
A. Lehman & Co. vs. P. N. Coulon et als.
Syllabus.
Motion to Dismiss.
The different amounts to be considered in order to determine whether the salt was simulated pel non, being in the aggregate more than two thousand dollars, and the issues, in the main, including more than that sum, the motion to dismiss is not granted.
On tee Mebits.
1. In a suit by a creditor against the husband and wife to have a dation r.n paiement decreed simulated, the husband was permitted to testify to the extent that his own interest was involved. He had some interest involved, besides, he had acted as his wife’s agent, and, in consequence, he was 'a competent witness. Moreover, without his testimony, there was enough testimony before the court to sustain the sale as not being a mere simulation.
2. The wife, separated in property, whose community interests with the husband are dissolved, still retains the right to recover against her husband any amount which he has received for her and converted to his own use.
3. The wife received amounts, made crops, and realized revenues on her separate property, for which her husband, by using same, became liable. The testimony does not prove that the husband made no revenues and that the result oi his exertions did not go to the support cf the family. In the absence of that proof, the amount required is not deducted from her separate right in order thereby to reduce it to nil and give rise to the conclusion that the wife has no separate right, as the whole amount went to the support of the family.
4. Sums paid previous to a dation en paiement for the support of the family, from all appearances, by the husband, will not be charged to the wife on the ground that she is liable for necessaries for the family.
5. The dation en paiement by the husband to the wife was not a simulation.
APPEAL from the Fourteenth Judicial District, Parish of Avoyelles — Peterman, Judge ad hoc.
Adolph Vallery Goco for Plaintiffs, Appellants.
T. PL. Gouvillon and Joffrion & Joffrion for Defendants, Appellees.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Breaux, J.
Plaintiffs sued the husband and wife for seven hundred and forty-one dollars and ninety-six cents and asked for a writ of attachment. They set out that the dation en paiement which they attack was made in fraud of creditors, or, in the alternative, that it is a simulation. The property transferred by this dation consisted of a very limited stock of goods, horses, and other property of little value, and a fractional interest in a gin company. The husband had no other property than that transferred, except some notes and accounts. The indebtedness of the husband for which the dation was made, the parties declare in the deed, was fourteen hundred and fourteen-and 50-100 dollars, which the husband declares was received by him and converted to his use. Plaintiff avers that the husband was insolvent.
The defendant husband seeks to meet the issues tendered by averring in his answer that the dation was made in good faith and for valuable consideration. The wile avers that the property became hers for a consideration equal to its value.
The District Court pronounced judgment for plaintiff for its moneyed demand, dissolved the attachment which had been issued, and, as relates to the defendant's wife, rejected her reconventional demand. Plaintiff appeals.
Motion to Dismiss.
Defendants contend that this court isl without jurisdiction,- ratione materiae.
Without recounting the facts at any length, we think it sufficient to state that if the action is revocatory, this court is without jurisdiction. This, we take it, is conceded by counsel for plaintiffs, who urge that this court should entertain jurisdiction in so far as plaintiff seeks to set aside the dation en paiement, on the ground that the 'husband is not indebted to the wife and the pretended consideration is fictitious.
The District Court passed upon these issues, and decided that the dation was neither fraudulent nor simulated. We, therefore, will review the issues of simulation vel non and will not pass on the question as to the asserted attempt to defraud. The different amounts to be considered in determining whether or not the dation en paiement is simulated or not, bring the case within this court's jurisdiction.