Pringle Associated Mortgage Corp. v. Eanes

206 So. 2d 81, 251 La. 711, 1968 La. LEXIS 2841
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedJanuary 15, 1968
DocketNo. 48735
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 206 So. 2d 81 (Pringle Associated Mortgage Corp. v. Eanes) 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
Pringle Associated Mortgage Corp. v. Eanes, 206 So. 2d 81, 251 La. 711, 1968 La. LEXIS 2841 (La. 1968).

Opinion

FOURNET, Chief Justice.

Pringle Associated Mortgage Corporation instituted this suit via ordinaria against Ernest R. Eanes, Jr., on his note secured by a mortgage affecting certain described property situated in the Parish of East Baton Rouge, and thereafter secured a judgment by default on April 20, 1966, for $263,615.70, recognizing plaintiff’s mortgage and ordering the sale of the mortgaged property — without appraisal — which was adjudicated to the plaintiff at sheriff’s sale on June 8, 1966. Pay, Incorporated (here[714]*714inafter referred to as Pay), that had in the meantime acquired the rights, title, and interest of the defendant, Eanes, in the mortgaged property by deed dated May 26, 1966, secured an order granting it a devolutive appeal1 on July 20, 1966. This appeal was dismissed on plaintiff’s motion by the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. 197 So.2d 160. We granted a writ of certiorari on the application of Pay to review this judgment. 250 La. 910, 199 So.2d 919.

We think the appellate court properly stated in its opinion that Pay must take the case as it finds it, and that “it stands precisely in Eanes’ shoes.” The appellate court erred, however, in limiting Pay’s rights to those of an intervenor. In appealing the case, Pay did not do so as an intervenor, hut as the successor or ayantcause by purchase of Eanes’ rights, title, and interest in the property. Certainly Eanes had the right to appeal from the judgment and to have its validity reviewed on appeal. Pay, as his successor, has the same right.2

For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, maintaining plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal, is reversed. And it is now ordered, adjudged, and decreed, that the motion be overruled and the case remanded to the Court of Appeal for consideration in accordance with law. The costs in this court are to be paid by Pringle Associated Mortgage Corporation; all other costs are to await the final determination of the matter.

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

Related

Kirk v. MacDonald
21 Mass. App. Ct. 21 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1985)
International City Bank & Trust Co. v. Round Table of Louisiana, Inc.
356 So. 2d 99 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1978)
Ivy v. Day
254 So. 2d 136 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1971)
Pringle Associated Mortgage Corp. v. Cox
234 So. 2d 854 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1970)
City of Natchitoches v. State
221 So. 2d 534 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1969)
Pringle Associated Mortgage Corporation v. Eanes
211 So. 2d 399 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
206 So. 2d 81, 251 La. 711, 1968 La. LEXIS 2841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pringle-associated-mortgage-corp-v-eanes-la-1968.