Case Name: SUARES vs. HIS CREDITORS
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1830-05
Citations: 1 La. 341
Docket Number: 
Parties: SUARES vs. HIS CREDITORS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 341–343

Head Matter:
SUARES vs. HIS CREDITORS.
The act ofl817, requiring oppositions to the tableau of an insolvent to be filed with,in a limited time, dies not apply to creditors who are not placed on the bilan.
Appeal from the court of the parish and city of New-Orleans.
The appellant, a creditor of the insolvent, not placed on bis bilan, opposed the homologation of the proceedings had before the notary. The court below set aside the opposition on the the ground that it was not filed within ten days. The opposing creditor appealed.
Eustis, for appellant.
The statute of 1817, does not apply to creditors of the insolvent, who are not placed ' on the bilan of the insolvent.
JUcCaleb, contra.
I. The judgment of the court below was correct; the meeting of the creditors was on the 7 th of December, and the opposition did not appear on file until the 18th of the same month: act of 1817; Dreux vs. his creditors, 2 Mart, n. s. 57.
The act of i8rr, requiring oppositions to the ta-bleauof an insolvent to be filed within a limited time, does not apply to creditors who are not pia-ced on the bilan.
2. Robinson does not show himself a creditor. Suares in exhibiting a statement of his affairs, sworn to, negatives the fact, and the record aflords no testimony that he had a claim.

Opinion:
Porter, J.
delivered the opinion of the court.
A meeting of the plaintiff's creditors took place before a notary public, and were returned into court. Before they were homolo-gated opposition was filed by the appellant, but the court rejected it on the ground that it was not made within ten days.
It appears, the party making the opposi- . . , » tion was not put upon the bilan, and we are of . . . . . , . , opinion that the limitation on which the court below rejected the opposition, applies only to , , " those who had notice, express or implied, of " . , the proceedings. 1 he appellant is not tn delay for not objecting to that of which he had no knowledge. In the case of Kirkland vs. his creditors, the opposing creditor was a party to the concurso more than ten days before he made opposition. 7 Mart 511.
It is has been urged there is no proof he D 1 is a creditor, but the rule taken on him did not require him to establish he was a credi-_ " , , . . . , tor. It called on him to show cause why the opposition should not be dismissed, because it was not properly sworn to, and filed too late; thereby admitting his right on other grounds.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the parish court be annulled, avoided and reversed; and it is further ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the. cause be remanded to said court, with directions to the judge not to reject the opposition because it was filed too late; and it is further ordered that the appellee pay the'costs of this appeal.