Percy v. Ewing

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Percy v. Ewing

69 So. 852, 137 La. 1100, 1915 La. LEXIS 1800

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedOctober 18, 1915

DocketNo. 21251

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 69 So. 852 (Percy v. Ewing) 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

Percy v. Ewing, 69 So. 852, 137 La. 1100, 1915 La. LEXIS 1800 (La. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

MONROE, C. J.

On October 15, 1913, plaintiff presented a sworn petition to the judge of the district court, alleging that her husband was temporarily absent, and that [1101]*1101she desired to borrow $600 upon a mortgage of certain paraphernal property, in order to pay an existing mortgage debt of $400, contracted for her separate benefit, make needed repairs, requiring $100, and pay taxes; and, the authority having been granted, she executed her note for $600, secured by mortgage, with a waiver of homestead, which were delivered to defendant by the People’s Bank, to whom, by plaintiff’s authority, he paid the $600. On January 30th, following, plaintiff’s husband, who is said to have been a traveling salesman, by private act, ratified what his wife had done. At a later date — after-maturity and nonpayment of the note— defendant caused executory process to issue thereon, and was met by an injunction, obtained by plaintiff, on a sworn petition in which she alleges that the $600 were borrowed to pay debts of her husband, that her husband died in August preceding the seizure, that the mortgaged property is her homestead, and that since his death she has not waived her homestead rights. It was shown on the trial that, of the $600 realized from the mortgage, $443.62 were expended in paying claims which would have primed plaintiff’s homestead claim, if she had had one that was otherwise good. But, at the execution of the mortgage, she was not the head of the family and had no one dependent on her; hence she had no homestead right, and she could not thereafter acquire one to the prejudice of the mortgage. Her waiver of the homestead was surplusage. Const. art 244; Borron v. Sollibellos, 28 La. Ann. 355; Fuselier v. Buckner, 28 La. Ann. 594; Taylor v. McElvin, 31 La. Ann. 283; Brannin v. Womble, 32 La. Ann. 805; Gilmer v. O’Neal, 32 La. Ann. 979; Tilton v. Vignes, 33 La. Ann. 242; Succession of Furniss, 34 La. Ann. 1013; Taylor v. Saloy, 38 La. Ann. 62; Coleman v. Wax, 120 La. 878, 45 South. 926; Ellis v. Freyhan, 124 La. 54, 49 South. 975; Coltharp v. West, 127 La. 430, 53 South. 675; Caire & Graugnard v. Hickox, 136 La. 803, 67 South. 887.

Plaintiff testifies that she told defendant that she intended to use some of the money that she was borrowing to pay grocery and drug bills, which were debts of the community. Defendant testifies that she gave him no such information.

Plaintiff’s sworn petition, upon which she obtained the authorization of the judge, and the act of mortgage executed by her, corroborate the testimony of the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

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

MONROE, C. J.

On October 15, 1913, plaintiff presented a sworn petition to the judge of the district court, alleging that her husband was temporarily absent, and that [1101]*1101she desired to borrow $600 upon a mortgage of certain paraphernal property, in order to pay an existing mortgage debt of $400, contracted for her separate benefit, make needed repairs, requiring $100, and pay taxes; and, the authority having been granted, she executed her note for $600, secured by mortgage, with a waiver of homestead, which were delivered to defendant by the People’s Bank, to whom, by plaintiff’s authority, he paid the $600. On January 30th, following, plaintiff’s husband, who is said to have been a traveling salesman, by private act, ratified what his wife had done. At a later date — after-maturity and nonpayment of the note— defendant caused executory process to issue thereon, and was met by an injunction, obtained by plaintiff, on a sworn petition in which she alleges that the $600 were borrowed to pay debts of her husband, that her husband died in August preceding the seizure, that the mortgaged property is her homestead, and that since his death she has not waived her homestead rights. It was shown on the trial that, of the $600 realized from the mortgage, $443.62 were expended in paying claims which would have primed plaintiff’s homestead claim, if she had had one that was otherwise good. But, at the execution of the mortgage, she was not the head of the family and had no one dependent on her; hence she had no homestead right, and she could not thereafter acquire one to the prejudice of the mortgage. Her waiver of the homestead was surplusage. Const. art 244; Borron v. Sollibellos, 28 La. Ann. 355; Fuselier v. Buckner, 28 La. Ann. 594; Taylor v. McElvin, 31 La. Ann. 283; Brannin v. Womble, 32 La. Ann. 805; Gilmer v. O’Neal, 32 La. Ann. 979; Tilton v. Vignes, 33 La. Ann. 242; Succession of Furniss, 34 La. Ann. 1013; Taylor v. Saloy, 38 La. Ann. 62; Coleman v. Wax, 120 La. 878, 45 South. 926; Ellis v. Freyhan, 124 La. 54, 49 South. 975; Coltharp v. West, 127 La. 430, 53 South. 675; Caire & Graugnard v. Hickox, 136 La. 803, 67 South. 887.

Plaintiff testifies that she told defendant that she intended to use some of the money that she was borrowing to pay grocery and drug bills, which were debts of the community. Defendant testifies that she gave him no such information.

Plaintiff’s sworn petition, upon which she obtained the authorization of the judge, and the act of mortgage executed by her, corroborate the testimony of the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 So. 852, 137 La. 1100, 1915 La. LEXIS 1800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/percy-v-ewing-la-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack