Case Name: DUREL v. BUCHANAN
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1920-05-31
Citations: 147 La. 804
Docket Number: No. 23939
Parties: DUREL v. BUCHANAN.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 147
Pages: 803–815

Head Matter:
(86 South. 189)
No. 23939.
DUREL v. BUCHANAN.
(May 31, 1920.
On the Merits, June 30, 1920.)
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
1. Appeal and error &wkey;»39l (6) — Appeal not dismissed without opportunity to furnish sufficient bond.
Since the provisions of Act No. 112 of 1916 an appeal cannot be dismissed for insufBcieney of the appeal bond without allowing appellant opportunity to furnish new and additional bond, as required by sections 3, 9.
On the Merits.
2. Chattel mortgages &wkey;>2ll — Holder of notes secured by mortgage in compliance with statute not affected by equities.
Under the chattel mortgage law, a holder of notes secured by chattel mortgage' executed in compliance with the statute, being such in good faith without knowledge of any secret equities not disclosed, and for a valuable consideration, is not affected by such claims or equities as between the original parties, but the mortgage should reasonably and clearly eon-form to the statute.
3. Mortgages <&wkey;97 — Mortgages are strict! juris.
Under Rev. Giv. Code, arts. 3284, 3306, all mortgages are stricti juris, and can exist only in the cases provided by law.
4. Chattel mortgages <&wkey;47 — Description of property, insufficient to permit foreclosure proceeding.
Chattel mortgage, describing the property covered as all the contents, furniture, effects, and articles situated in a rooming house sold, with the exception of such articles as the seller desired to retain, held not to meet the legal requirements of the chattel mortgage law, necessary to permit a proceeding via executiva.
5. .Chattel mortgages <&wkey;208 — Holder of notes secured not affected by fraud not appearing or suggested.
In the absence of actual knowledge in the holder of notes secured by chattel mortgage of any fraud or misrepresentation not appearing on or suggested by the mortgage itself, the holder could not have been affected thereby in her suit to foreclose.
6. Chattel mortgages <&wkey;278 — In suit'for foreclosure where fraud involved, evidence on all points should be admitted.
When fraud and conspiracy are imputed to the holder of notes secured by chattel mortgage, in a proceeding to foreclose by executory process, the trial judge should permit the introduction of evidence on' all points, so that, if the appellate court should not agree with him in his conclusion as to whether the holder is bound by the equities between the original parties, the matter may speedily be disposed of without remand for further proof.
7. Chattel mortgages &wkey;>256 — Foreclosure by executory process may be enjoined.
If transferee of mortgage notes, proceeding by executory process, was not entitled to ex-ecutory process, the mortgagor was entitled to injunction restraining the sale.
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; Porter Parker, Judge.
Suit by Mrs. Peter E. Durel against Cornelius R. Buchanan, Sr., wherein defendant petitioned for injunction. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant in injunction, defendant appeals.
Judgment annulled and reversed, and temporary writ of injunction perpetuated.
Sanders, Brian & Sanders, of New Orleans, for appellant.
Alfred D. Danziger, of New Orleans (Percival H. Stem, of New Orleans, of counsel), for appellee.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
DAWKINS, J.
The appellee in this case has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground of the insufficiency of the appeal bond.
Since the passage of Act No. 112 of 1916, appeals cannot be dismissed for the reason urged, without first following out the procedure provided therein. The act in question, after providing that any litigant who has furnished a bond in any judicial proceeding, or under any order of court, shall have the right to furnish new or additional bonds, when those given are insufficient or defective in any wise, in section 3 provides as follows:
"That the right to furnish such new, or such supplemental or additional bond shall be exercised as follows: The party desiring to furnish such new, or such supplemental or additional bond shall have the right so to do at any time prior to judgment; if the adverse party, or any other party in interest shall cause to be served upon him through the proper officer for service, a notice that such adverse party, or the party in interest, claims that a bond furnished in the proceeding to which he is a party or in which he has an interest, is insufficient either as to form or substance, or of the solvency, or because of the pecuniary insufficiency of 'the surety or sureties thereon, the said party who has furnished such bond shall have the right within two days, exclusive of Sundays, legal holidays and half holidays, to furnish the new bond, or supplemental bond or additional bond above referred to. If he shall fail to furnish same, the case shall then proceed without any diminution of the right of the adverse party, or other party' in interest, to test the sufficiency of the bond furnished whether as to. the amount or form thereof, or the solvency of the surety or sureties thereon."
And section 9 of said act is as follows:
"That no appeal shall be dismissed, nor shall any writ, or other process be set aside on account of any error in the amount of the bond, or for any inaccuracy or omission in the bond, or for the insufficiency of any surety, or sureties, on said bond, until the party furnishing such bond shall have failed to correct the error, inaccuracy or omission, or to have furnished, supplemental or additional bond, or surety or sureties, as herein above provided."
For the reasons assigned, the motion to dismiss is denied.