A. V. Nielson Co. v. Siess

Supreme Court of Louisiana

A. V. Nielson Co. v. Siess

75 So. 82, 141 La. 366

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedApril 16, 1917

DocketNo. 20810

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 75 So. 82 (A. V. Nielson Co. v. Siess) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A. V. Nielson Co. v. Siess, 75 So. 82, 141 La. 366 (La. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

PROVOSTY, J.

Plaintiff is a judgment creditor of the defendant Mrs'., Siess. The present suit is a rule taken by it on Mrs. Siess, individually and as tutrix of her children, and on the recorder of mortgages, to show cause why the amount of the legal mortgage of the minors on the property of their said tutrix, resulting from the recordation of an abstract of the inventory of the succession of the father of Said minors, should not be reduced, for the alleged reason that the amount of said inventory was fraudulently inflated for the purpose of shielding the property of said Mrs. Siess, mother and tutrix of said minors, from the pursuit of her creditors.

The legal mortgage in favor of minors upon the property of their tutor does not represent an actual indebtedness, but serves merely to secure faithfulness in the administration of the tutorship; and this court has expressly held that it “can be removed by nothing short of a special mortgage.” Life Ass’n v. Hall, 33 La. Ann. 49. Reduction would be pro tanto, a removal, and, as such, falls squarely under that decision.

Judgment affirmed.

SOMMERYILLE, J., takes no part.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PROVOSTY, J.

Plaintiff is a judgment creditor of the defendant Mrs'., Siess. The present suit is a rule taken by it on Mrs. Siess, individually and as tutrix of her children, and on the recorder of mortgages, to show cause why the amount of the legal mortgage of the minors on the property of their said tutrix, resulting from the recordation of an abstract of the inventory of the succession of the father of Said minors, should not be reduced, for the alleged reason that the amount of said inventory was fraudulently inflated for the purpose of shielding the property of said Mrs. Siess, mother and tutrix of said minors, from the pursuit of her creditors.

The legal mortgage in favor of minors upon the property of their tutor does not represent an actual indebtedness, but serves merely to secure faithfulness in the administration of the tutorship; and this court has expressly held that it “can be removed by nothing short of a special mortgage.” Life Ass’n v. Hall, 33 La. Ann. 49. Reduction would be pro tanto, a removal, and, as such, falls squarely under that decision.

Judgment affirmed.

SOMMERYILLE, J., takes no part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 So. 82, 141 La. 366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-v-nielson-co-v-siess-la-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack