Hill v. De Lizardi

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Hill v. De Lizardi

2 Rob. 89

DecidedApril 15, 1842

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Rob. 89 (Hill v. De Lizardi) 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

Hill v. De Lizardi, 2 Rob. 89 (La. 1842).

Pincite

Opinion

Martin, J.

The defendants are appellants from a judgment perpetuating an injunction, which the plaintiffs had obtained to prevent the sale of a steamboat of theirs under an order of seizure and sale, issued on an authentic act of mortgage given to defendants by the vendor of the plaintiffs. The counsel of the appellants has contended that their mortgage contains a clause de non alienando, and that by the act of sale by which the plaintiffs acquired the steamboat, they submitted themselves to the effect of the appellants’ mortgage. It was admitted, that as to persons not parties, nor privies to the mortgage, its nullity might be urged; but argued that the plaintiffs’ vendor, who gave the mortgage, and the plaintiffs who subjected themselves to its effect, are bound thereby.

It does not appear to us that the court erred. In the case of Loze v. Dimitry et al., 7 La. 485, this court held that “ ships and vessels are indeed susceptible of being mortgaged, but not like immoveable property. The “mortgage of ships and vessels, or to speak more correctly, in the language of the Louisiana Code, art. 3272, the hypothecation of ships and vessels does not take place, like that of immoveable property and slaves, but according to the laws and usages of commerce. They are not, mentioned in that part of the Louisiana Code which treats of legal and judicial mortgages, and not classed with immoveable property and slaves, as being susceptible of mortgage.” The same principle [90]*90was recognized in the case of Malcolm et al. v. Schooner Henrietta et al., Ib. 488, which was that of a conventional mortgage on a schooner, executed by the owneT in favor of a creditor, to secure the payment of a debt, and duly recorded in the mortgage office. We there held that sucli a mortgage has no effect; and that ships are not subject to the same incumbrances which attach to immoveables, as lands and slaves, situated within the constant operation of the laws of the state. Finally, in the case of Grant v. Fiol, 17 La. 158, such a mortgage was declared to be a nullity.

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

Martin, J.

The defendants are appellants from a judgment perpetuating an injunction, which the plaintiffs had obtained to prevent the sale of a steamboat of theirs under an order of seizure and sale, issued on an authentic act of mortgage given to defendants by the vendor of the plaintiffs. The counsel of the appellants has contended that their mortgage contains a clause de non alienando, and that by the act of sale by which the plaintiffs acquired the steamboat, they submitted themselves to the effect of the appellants’ mortgage. It was admitted, that as to persons not parties, nor privies to the mortgage, its nullity might be urged; but argued that the plaintiffs’ vendor, who gave the mortgage, and the plaintiffs who subjected themselves to its effect, are bound thereby.

It does not appear to us that the court erred. In the case of Loze v. Dimitry et al., 7 La. 485, this court held that “ ships and vessels are indeed susceptible of being mortgaged, but not like immoveable property. The “mortgage of ships and vessels, or to speak more correctly, in the language of the Louisiana Code, art. 3272, the hypothecation of ships and vessels does not take place, like that of immoveable property and slaves, but according to the laws and usages of commerce. They are not, mentioned in that part of the Louisiana Code which treats of legal and judicial mortgages, and not classed with immoveable property and slaves, as being susceptible of mortgage.” The same principle [90]*90was recognized in the case of Malcolm et al. v. Schooner Henrietta et al., Ib. 488, which was that of a conventional mortgage on a schooner, executed by the owneT in favor of a creditor, to secure the payment of a debt, and duly recorded in the mortgage office. We there held that sucli a mortgage has no effect; and that ships are not subject to the same incumbrances which attach to immoveables, as lands and slaves, situated within the constant operation of the laws of the state. Finally, in the case of Grant v. Fiol, 17 La. 158, such a mortgage was declared to be a nullity.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Rob. 89, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-de-lizardi-la-1842.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack