John Chaffe & Sons v. DeMoss

Supreme Court of Louisiana

John Chaffe & Sons v. DeMoss

37 La. Ann. 186

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMarch 15, 1885

DocketNo. 9357

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 37 La. Ann. 186 (John Chaffe & Sons v. DeMoss) 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

John Chaffe & Sons v. DeMoss, 37 La. Ann. 186 (La. 1885).

Pincite

Opinions

Motion to Dismiss.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Poohií, J.

Plaintiffs’ object, by means of tliis suit, is to obtain a judgment declaring tbe purchase of a plantation by the wife of DeMoss to be a nullity and a simulation, and that the jiurchase was really made for the husband, who is their judgment debtor in the sum of $1679.86. Hence they seek to execute their judgment on said plantation, which the record discloses is worth about $6000.

Appellee’s contention is that this Courtis without jurisdiction, for the reason that the amount of the judgment, which is the matter in dispute, is less in amount than the lower limit of our jurisdiction. They are in error; the real matter in dispute is the validity of tlie defendant wife’s title to property of the value of $6000. A judgment in their favor would strip the wife of her title to the property in question in toto; a judgment in her favor would confirm her title. Under [187]*187no circumstances, could the validity- of plaintiffs’ judgment he affected by- the final determination of the issues presented by the pleadings in the present controversy.

Appellees can obtain no support of their theory from the two cases which they quote: Loeb & Bloom vs. Arent, 33 Ann. 1086; Zuberbier & Behan vs. Morse, recently decided, and not yet reported.

Both of those cases were instances of the revocatory action, in which the matter in dispute is the right of the seizing creditor to subject the property to the execution of his judgment, without necessarily effecting the status of the property- as to third parties.

As stated above, in the present case, which is practically the action in declaration of simulation, a judgment would determine the title to the property as to the whole world.

The motion in this case is governed by the considerations which prevailed in the case of the State ex rel. Bloss vs. Judges of Court of Appeals, 33 Ann. 1351.

The motion to dismiss is therefore denied.

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

Motion to Dismiss.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Poohií, J.

Plaintiffs’ object, by means of tliis suit, is to obtain a judgment declaring tbe purchase of a plantation by the wife of DeMoss to be a nullity and a simulation, and that the jiurchase was really made for the husband, who is their judgment debtor in the sum of $1679.86. Hence they seek to execute their judgment on said plantation, which the record discloses is worth about $6000.

Appellee’s contention is that this Courtis without jurisdiction, for the reason that the amount of the judgment, which is the matter in dispute, is less in amount than the lower limit of our jurisdiction. They are in error; the real matter in dispute is the validity of tlie defendant wife’s title to property of the value of $6000. A judgment in their favor would strip the wife of her title to the property in question in toto; a judgment in her favor would confirm her title. Under [187]*187no circumstances, could the validity- of plaintiffs’ judgment he affected by- the final determination of the issues presented by the pleadings in the present controversy.

Appellees can obtain no support of their theory from the two cases which they quote: Loeb & Bloom vs. Arent, 33 Ann. 1086; Zuberbier & Behan vs. Morse, recently decided, and not yet reported.

Both of those cases were instances of the revocatory action, in which the matter in dispute is the right of the seizing creditor to subject the property to the execution of his judgment, without necessarily effecting the status of the property- as to third parties.

As stated above, in the present case, which is practically the action in declaration of simulation, a judgment would determine the title to the property as to the whole world.

The motion in this case is governed by the considerations which prevailed in the case of the State ex rel. Bloss vs. Judges of Court of Appeals, 33 Ann. 1351.

The motion to dismiss is therefore denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 La. Ann. 186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-chaffe-sons-v-demoss-la-1885.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack