Case Name: Amadie Testart vs. Hypolite Belot et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1879-11
Citations: 31 La. 795
Docket Number: No. 7245
Parties: Amadie Testart vs. Hypolite Belot et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 31
Pages: 795–799

Head Matter:
No. 7245.
Amadie Testart vs. Hypolite Belot et al.
The petition of appellant, verified by his oath in a suit to enjoin a sale, that the property sold, and which he claims is worth over $600, gives this court jurisdiction, although it may appear that he bought the property for (fioo, subject to taxes, and that the judgment under which the sale was made was for only $200,
The creditor of one who has made a simulated sale of his property has a right to prove the simulation by parol evidence. He is not restricted to a counter letter, as a means of proof.
The innocent holder of a mortgage note, executed by one in whom the recorded legal title of the mortgaged property rested, can not be affected by the fact the recorded title rested on a simulated sale.
Where it is alleged that the holder of a note is not its owner, that it was passed t® him for the purpose of suing on the same, thus alleging in effect that he is a ' • party interposed to defeat the plaintiff’s claim, evidence is admissible to prove the non-ownership.
APPEAL from the Fifth District Court, parish of Orleans. ■ Rogers, J.
W. B. Murphy for plaintiff and appellant.
A. B. Phillips for defendant and appellee.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
Spencer, J.
Defendants, appellees, move to dismiss this appeal, on the ground that the amount in dispute does not exceed $500.
Plaintiff, the appellant, enjoins the sale of a certain lot of ground in New Orleans, seized at the suit of Belot vs. Meir. The injunction is' based upon plaintiff's claim of ownership of th¿ lot, which is the thing in dispute. The petition, verified by oath, alleges the value of the lot to be over $600. It seems that plaintiff acquired the lot at public sale for $400, subject to ¿axes, and that the judgment under which this sale was made was for only $200. Appellee contends that these facts show a value less than $500.
We think this conclusion a nonsequitur. These facts are not inconsistent with the allegation and oath of plaintiff, that at date of injunction the property was worth six hundred dollars.
The motion is refused.