Case Name: Mrs. Mary Murphy vs. Factors' and Traders' Insurance Company et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1881-04
Citations: 33 La. Ann. 454
Docket Number: No. 6399
Parties: Mrs. Mary Murphy vs. Factors’ and Traders’ Insurance Company et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 33
Pages: 454–466

Head Matter:
No. 6399.
Mrs. Mary Murphy vs. Factors’ and Traders’ Insurance Company et al.
On the Motion to Dismiss.
It» is no good cause of complaint for tlie Appellant and no ground of dismissal, that three appeals taken by different parties in the same case, be embraced in one Transcript.
Insufficient service of citation of appeal, not attributable to the Appellant, should not canse the dismissal of the appeal.
On the Merits.
Under the late bankrupt law-of the United States, the property of the bankrupt could legally be sold free of encumbrances, by order of the Federal Court, provided the mortgage creditors were properly notified to show cause why it should not be done.
In default of such notice, the mortgages or privileges on the property were unaffected by the sale.
Therefore, when the mortgage creditor, who was notified, bought the property at the sale ordered by the Court, his mortgage was extinguished by confusion, but he took the property subject to the mortgage of the creditor, who was not notified to show cause why the property should not he sold free of encumbrances.
Suoh purchaser is a third possessor, not liable to a personal judgment on behalf of the mortgage creditor, but against whom the latter has an action of indemnification for the value of any part of the thing mortgaged, which has been deteriorated or taken away, if the property is not sufficient to satisfy the mortgage.
The purchaser in suoh case, is not entitled to be reimbursed the taxes on the, property and other expenses paid by him, with priority over the mortgage creditor with the pact de non alienemdo. Under the pact, the vendee has no better right than the vendor, the original mortgagor.
APPEAL from the Fifth District Court for the parish of Orleans. Oullom, J.
J. D. Coleman for Plaintiff and Appellee.
Gibson, Rail and Montgomery for the Insurance Company, Defendant and Appellant:
On the Application for Rehearing.
A note drawn to the order of the maker, and by him indorsed in blank, secured by act of mortgage, with the clause, “and to enure to the use and benefit of any and all future holder or holders” is transferred by delivery from hand to hand, and a transaction made in good faith with suoh holders concerning suoh note is binding and valid, possession protecting the sale, pledge or other disposition thereof. The possession of suoh paper carries the title with it to the holder. The possession and title are one and inseparable; 2 Wal. 110, Murray vs. Lardner, 20 An. 264; Doll vs. Rezitti, 26 An. 15; Griovanorich vs. Citizens’ Bank, 2 Parsons on Bills, 272, 279 ; 20 How. 843 5 22 How. 96; 18 An. 192; Jackel vs. Fried 20 An. 72; Wheeler vs. Maillot, 20 How. 343 ; Louque’s Digest, page 88.
Singleton & Browne for Leeds & Co., Defendants and Appellants.

Opinion:
On the Motion to Dismiss.
The opinion of the Oourt was delivered by
Wyly, J.
From the final judgment in this ease, signed on 3d July, 1876, three appeals were taken, viz: One by the Factors' and Traders' Insurance Company, one by C. J. Leeds & Co., and one by Percy Roberts, assignee — all parties to this litigation.
Plaintiff, appellee herein, moves to dismiss the appeals:
1st. On the ground that citations of the appeals were served on her attorney, and not on herself, she being a resident of New Orleans.
2d. Reserving the benefit of this objection, and without in any manner waiving it, she objects on the ground that Marshall J. Smith and other necessary parties have not been made parties to the appeal.
3d. That the three appeals are improperly embraced in the same transcript.
There can be no valid objection to the appeals herein being contained in the same transcript. Certainly the interest of plaintiff has not been impaired thereby. They are all for the settlement of this litigation. Marshall J. Smith, and E. E. Norton, assignee, have filed an appearance in this Court which, of course, makes them parties, if they are necessary parties. .
As to the objection that citations of the appeals were served on the attorney of plaintiff, and not on herself, we will remark that the record satisfies us that it was the fault of the sheriff and not of appellants, who, in their petitions for appeals, prayed that plaintiff be cited.
In the ease of the Widow and Heirs of Julien Seghers vs. Nevil Soule and Albert Gaillard, decided in January, 1876, and not yet reported, this Court said: " Appellants were not bound to mention the names of the appellees in their petition for appeal. They prayed that plaintiffs (who are appellees) be cited. This was sufficient. It was the duty of the clerk to issue citations to all the plaintiffs mentioned in the petition, and it was the duty of the sheriff to serve the citations. No appeal should be dismissed unless the fault is attributed to the appellants." See Act 45 of Extra Session, of 1870, section 11 ; 17 La. 515; 2 An. 769; 12 An. 332; 13 An. 259; 14 An. 698; 16 An. 303; 21 An. 669.
As appellants have caused plaintiff to be served with citations since this motion was filed, it will not be necessary to continue the case for service of citations.
The motion to dismiss is denied.