Case Name: W. J. Q. Baker vs. Henry Frellsen; W. J. Q. Baker vs. T. P. Richardson, Sheriff, et al. Consolidated
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1880-06
Citations: 32 La. Ann. 822
Docket Number: No. 980
Parties: W. J. Q. Baker vs. Henry Frellsen. W. J. Q. Baker vs. T. P. Richardson, Sheriff, et al. Consolidated.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 32
Pages: 822–831

Head Matter:
No. 980.
W. J. Q. Baker vs. Henry Frellsen. W. J. Q. Baker vs. T. P. Richardson, Sheriff, et al. Consolidated.
JL Motion to dismiss the Appeal will be denied when the reasons urged, by Appellee require an investigation into the facts and merits of the case.
■a'A compromise between creditor and debtor, by which the amount of the debt, the terms and mode of payment, the rate of interest and the nature of the securities are changed, does not effect a novation, unless the intention of the parties to novate the obligation is particularly expressed.
Xhe surety on an Injunction bond is discharged by an agreement entered into, without his consent, by the Plaintiff and Defendant, to have the case tried at chambers and decided after Court term.
*2Tudgment on the Exception of Ho cause of action, when it maintains the Exception, constitutes Res judicata as effectually as if rendered on the merits of the case.
APPEAL from the Fifth Judicial District Court, parish of Ouachita. F. P. Stubbs, Special Judge.
W. J. Q. Baker, propria persona, and Joha T. Ludeling for Plaintiff sand Appellee:
The parties, by their Compromise, have novated the original debt, and the vendor’s privilege, which secured it, was not transferred to the new debt. Jacobs’ Law Dictionary, vol. 4, p. 279. C. C. 2189 et seq-Pothier, vol. 1, p. 438, No. 546 et seq. Domat, 2305.
Plaintiff is entitled by law to his homestead. 28 An. 333.
Boatner & Liddell for Defendant and Appellant:
First — When it appears that the husband and wife in a former injunction, decided adversely to them, each claimed the homestead, the plea of res adjudicata will be maintained when the husband alone, in a second injunction, issued on the same judgment, again claims a homestead on the identical land. 9 An. 208 ; 12 An. 613 and 199 ; 30 An. 230, 441; 5 La. 244.
■Second — In a suit to annul a judgment from which an appeal has been taken on the ground of error and fraud, patent in the record, the plea of lis pendens will be maintained against the suit to annul when the petition in the suit to annul sets forth the same grounds as the petition of appeal. The remedy is by appeal. 30 An. 793; 23 An. 147 ; 9 An. 197, 428 ; 17 An. 726.
Third — In order to annul a judgment for fraud, the evidence must be clear and positive. 11 La. 139.
Fourth — When it appears that the debt, the basis of the judgment, is for the purchase price of the property, and when that debt is secured by mortgage retained in the notarial deed to secure the vendor, or any bona fide owner of said notes, the judgment of the court may properly decree the recognition and enforcement of the special mortgage and vendor’s privilege, unless it is specifically renounced.
Fifth — The renunciation of the vendor’s privilege will not be presumed ; its renunciation must be clear and explicit.
Sixth — Though the vendor’s privilege do not exist, yet if it appear that the debt for whi?h the property is pursued is for the purchase price thereof, the debtor cannot maintain a homestead on the property. 28 An. 415,183.
Seventh — Novation is not presumed ; the intention to novate must be clearly deducible from the terms of the agreement.
Eighth — When a debt is merely divided into installments and the interest thereon reduced, there is no novation.
Ninth — The testimony of the attorney who drew up the judgment is properly admissible to disprove an allegation of fraudulent intent in writing up said judgment.
Tenth — One pursued by the innocent third holder of notes representing the purchase price of a piece of property will .not be allowed to introduce evidence to destroy the title of his vendor and his own in order to defeat said claim. C. O. 2185-7-9-90 ; Pothier (559); 3 An. 600 ; 4 An. 281; 9 An. 228; 29 An. 841; 26 An. 691; 13 An. 549 ; 10 Rob. 418.
Eleventh — -When an injunction is manifestly taken without good ground^ and for the purpose of delay, it will be dissolved with damages.
Twelfth — When the parties to a suit enter into a written agreement that the judge shall decide the case in chambers and file his judgment in the clerk’s office, and said agreement is spread on the minutes of the court, a judgment rendered in accordance therewith, as between the parties, will be valid.
Thirteenth — Where a judgment contains a stay of execution, the judgment debtor is in default by the terms of the contract if he fails to pay the installment according to the terms of the judgment.
Fourteenth — It is not to be presumed that a clerk would issue an execution except when legally authorized to do so.
Fifteenth — The judgment debtor who enjoins the execution upon the ground that it issued prematurely must allege and prove the facts necessary to sustain his defense.
The opinion of the Court on the l\lotion to Dismiss was delivered by Bermudez, C. J.
The opinion of the Court on the Merits was delivered by Levy, J.
The opinion of the Court on the Application for Rehearing was delivered by Bermüdez, C. J.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
Bermudez, C. J.
The plaintiff, Baker, having, in aid of a suit previously instituted, obtained an injunction to arrest a suit against him, furnished the bond required, with John T. Ludeling as surety therein.
Parties plaintiff and defendant being desirous of having the suit determined, agreed that it could be heard and decided, at chambers, after the adjournment of the court and term time.
The document signed to that effect was noted on the minutes. It was not signed by the surety on the bond for the injunction.
In furtherance of the agreement, the case was taken up, decided, and the judgment was signed by a judge ad hoc at chambers, without any knowledge or participation on the part of the surety.
The judgment was, that the injunction be dissolved without damages. From this judgment an appeal was taken by petition, and citation was served on the surety on the injunction bond. He now moves this Court to dismiss the appeal, because he was no party to the consent that the ¡ease be tried at chambers, and is not bound by the judgment so rendered.
0£ whatever relief the irregularities charged may be to the surety, they cannot be inquired into on a motion to dismiss, as they necessitate an investigation into the facts of the case as presented by the appeal. Tlie validity of those objections will be tested and passed upon when the merits of the case will be considered and determined.
Motion overruled.