Case Name: Charles E. Alter v. S. O. Nelson & Co.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1875-03
Citations: 27 La. 242
Docket Number: No. 5580
Parties: Charles E. Alter v. S. O. Nelson & Co.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 27
Pages: 242–243

Head Matter:
No. 5580.
Charles E. Alter v. S. O. Nelson & Co.
This suit was brought to revivo a judgment m solido against defendants, Nelson & Co., serving citation only on Nelson. In bar of the proceeding he pleaded Ms discharge in bankruptcy. It was a vain tMng to cite Mm, because he could not be held personally liable, and whether or not a judicial mortgage should be perpetuated against the bankrupt’s estate by reviving the judgment, was a question that might interest the assignee, the special representative of the ordinary creditors, but it in no manner concerned the bankrupt, who had surrendered his entire estate.
APPEAL from the Sixth District Court, parish of Orleans. Sauciert J.
Franlc L. Eicliardson, for plaintiff and appellant. Breaux, Fenner ds Hall, Hyams & Jonas, for defendant and appellee.

Opinion:
Wyly, J.
On the sixteenth June, 1863, the plaintiff recovered judgment against the defendants in solido for $25,000. On tenth of June, 1873, he brought this suit to revive said judgment, serving citation only on S. O. Nelson.
In bar of the proceeding the defendant, S. O. Nelson, pleaded his discharge in bankruptcy. The court gave judgment for this defendant, and the plaintiff appeals.
We think the court did not err. The discharge in bankruptcy released the defendant from paying the judgment. And if the object of the plaintiff was, as he says, merely to avert prescription of the judgment in order to preserve the judicial mortgage resulting from recording the judgment in the parish of Iberia, where the defendants owned immovable property, that object could not be accomplished by citing the defendant, a discharged bankrupt, who was without interest.
It was a vain thing to cite him, because he could not be held personally liable; and whether or not a judicial mortgage should be perpetuated against the bankrupt's estate by reviving the judgment was a question that might interest the assignee, the special representative of the ordinary creditors, but it in no manner concerned the bankrupt, who had surrendered his entire estate.
Judgment affirmed.
Rehearing refused.