10 La. Ann. 433 | La. | 1855
Lead Opinion
This appeal is taken by the defendants from an order made by the court below, dismissing the oppositions of the defendants to an order of seizure and sale which the plaintiff had obtained.
The order of seizure and sale was granted on an act of mortgage executed by the defendants in favor of Maunsel White, to secure the payment of three promissory notes executed by the defendants for $10,766 each. The notes are the first and second notes of the defendants, payable to their own order, and Mrs. M. Moussier, being a married woman, was authorized by her husband to sign them.
The opposition of Mrs. Moussier sets forth that she was a married woman, and, that her notes were not therefore binding on her. She does not allege that the notes were given for a debt of her husband, but denies that she ever received any consideration therefor. The opposition was not sworn to and no injunction was prayed for. The other defendant took a rule on the plaintiff to show cause why the order of seizure and sale should not be set aside, on the ground that the defendants were entitled to certain credits, which could only be finally determined in an ordinary action. The Judge of the court below dismissed the oppositions of both defendants, on the ground that the only mode of arresting an order of seizure and sale, pointed out by law, was by an injunction.
The appellants’ counsel argues that the appeal is taken from the order of seizure and sale, as well as from the order dismissing the oppositions, and contends that, on the face of the petition of the plaintiff, it appears that the order of seizure and sale could not have legally issued against Mrs. Moussier, who was a married woman.
The defendants have not filed an assignment of errors as required by the Code of Practice, when the case comes up without any bill of exceptions or certificate of the Clerk that the transcript contains all the evidence. No motion having been made to dismiss the appeal on that ground, we have considered
Plaintiff, by a supplemental petition, allowed certain credits, and it is not alleged by either of the defendants, that there are any other credits to which they are justly entitled. If there were such, the defendants should have filed an opposition under oath, setting forth the payments which had been made, and praying for an injunction in conformity with Art. 739 of the Code of Practice.
The court below did not err in dismissing the oppositions, and the judgment is therefore affirmed, with costs.
Concurrence Opinion
I conenr in the opinion prepared by Mr. Justice Ogden, and add the following reasons :
A single, and a married woman authorized by her husband, executed their joint and several notes, and secured them by an authentic act of mortgage importing a confession of judgment upon a plantation and certain slaves.
.It is contended that an order of seizure and sale could not be lawfully issued upon these authentic documents, although no informality is suggested, simply because one of the parties is a married woman.
It is also contended that the order of seizure and sale could be arrested by the married woman without affidavit or bond, upon her mere suggestion of a want of lawful consideration for the notes.
These propositions are novel and startling, and no precedent is cited to sustain them, if they are well founded in law, then no order of seizure and sale can ever be properly issued upon an authentic act of mortgage, when a married woman is one of the mortgagors, for the proof of consideration, and that such consideration enured to the separate benefit of the married woman, is, under the decisions, necessarily a matter in pais; her own acknowledgment in either act not constituting proof thereof.
The check that such a doctrine would impose upon the operations of commerce in a community where so large an amount of property is held by married women, should make us pause, before we add this to the other embarrassments of business in this State.
The wife, whether separated in property by contract or by judgment, or not separated, cannot bind herself for her husband nor conjointly with him, for debts contracted by him before or during the marriage.” C. C. 2412.
But, in the ease before us, the wife does not pretend to bind herself for her husband, nor conjointly with him. Duly authorized by her husband, she confesses judgment for a debt apparently her own.
Must the judge, in such a case, without any evidence before him but the authentic act, on which, there appears no single circumstance of suspicion, presume that it contains a latent fraud upon the law ? Has such fraud become so common
The true doctrine, is, that where the authentic acts bear intrinsic evidence that the wife has exceeded her powers, the judge should not issue an order of seizure and sale; but where they do not bear such evidence, the order should be issued and the wife left to her remedy, like other defendants in executory process, by injunction upon affidavit. C. P. 738, 739 ; Exchange and Banking Co. v. Walden, 15 L. R. 433 ; Clement v. Oakey, 3 Rob. 90; Minot v. United Stales, 4 Rob. 493.
For, the wife may, in certain cases, validly mortgage her property with the authorization of her husband, in writing. C. C. 124,1779, 2367, 2411.
It is true, that, when an issue is properly made up between the parties, the burden of proving the affirmative that the debt of the wife (particularly where it has been contracted conjointly with her husband) enured to her separate benefit, has been thrown upon the creditor. But, in no case does it appear that such an issue was made by rule upon simple suggestion without affidavit, when an order of seizure had been issued upon authentic documents unsuspicious upon their face.
The case of Durnford v. Gross and Wife, 7 M. 465, was an ordinary action against the wife upon a promissory note signed conjointly with her husband. So was the case of Davidson v. Stewart, 10 L. R. 146.
Brandegee v. Kerr and Wife, 7 N. S. 64, was an ordinary suit upon a promissory note made by the wife and endorsed by the husband, which, the court remarked, could not be distinguished from a joint and several note of husband and wife.
Prudhomme v. Edens, Administrator, 6 Rob. 65, was an action vid ordinaria upon a note drawn in solido by husband and wife.
The Firemen's Insurance Company v. Cross, 4 Rob. 510, was an ordinary suit upon a note made by the defendant, authorized by her husband, who also, in the accompanying acts of mortgage, bound himself for the debt; but the point decided was, that the District Judge ruled correctly in allowing the defendant to show by testimony that the loan was actually made to Osborn Cross her husband, and not to her herself, as stated in the acts.
Patterson & Co. v. Fraser and Wife, 5 An. 586, was an ordinary action, in which the wife denied her acknowledgment in an authentic act made when she was a minor under marital authority. The evidence cast various circumstances of suspicion upon the good faith of the act, and the court refused to hold the wife bound.
De Gaalon v. Matherue, 5 An. 495, was a simple suit upon a promissory note, and the wife proved that her husband had received the consideration, and was released.
Provost v. Provost, 5 An. 574, was an action by a married woman to annul an assignment made by her, and the court said that, under the evidence, there was no douht that the assignment was an attempt to apply the separate property of the wife to the payment of the debts of the husband, which the law forbids.
In Pascal v. Sauvinet, 1 An. 428, the wife sued out an injunction against an order of seizure and sale upon a mortgage, which, her husband, as her attorney in fact, had given ; the court sustained the injunction, stating that the evidence
In Taylor v. Carlyle, 2 An. 579, the plaintiff, a married woman, also enjoined an order of seizure and sale against her property, upon the ground that the debt for which the mortgage was given, was her husband’s debt; the court said the evidence satisfactorily established the averment, and perpetuated the injunction.
Ervin v. McCalop, 5 An. 173, was an injunction sued out by the wife, against an order of seizure and sale under similar circumstances. The defendant in injunction met the issue, and attempted to prove that the debt inured to the benefit of the plaintiff, in which he failed.
In Beauregard v. Her Husband, 7 An. 293,it appears that the note upon which the order of seizure and sale issued was the joint and several obligation of the husband and wife, and, therefore, came within the prohibition of C. C. 2412.— Still, the wife went through all the formalities of an injunction to stay the sale, and succeeded.
Not one of these cases sustains the position of the appellant, that the petition and documents annexed do not make out a proper case for an order of seizure and sale, or that, it is competent for her to arrest the order by her unsworn statement, in a rule, that ihe notes were without consideration.
She should have proceeded by injunction, if she wished to arrest so solemn a proceeding as this order, based upon her own formal act importing a confession of judgment. *.
