Studebaker Bros. Mfg. Co. v. Endom

23 So. 872, 50 La. Ann. 674, 1898 La. LEXIS 537
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedJune 22, 1898
DocketNo. 12,845
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 23 So. 872 (Studebaker Bros. Mfg. Co. v. Endom) 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
Studebaker Bros. Mfg. Co. v. Endom, 23 So. 872, 50 La. Ann. 674, 1898 La. LEXIS 537 (La. 1898).

Opinion

The opinion of the court Was delivered by

Blanchard, J.

Plaintiffs are manufacturers of wagons, carriages, buggies and other vehicles at South Bend, Indiana.

Fred. Endom, a business man of Monroe, La., handling goods and wares such as plaintiffs manufactured, opened an account with the latter in May, 1889.

For several years this account ran, purchases and payments being made from time to time. On July 1, 1898, a balance of two thousand six hundred and eighty seven dollars and seventy-eight cents was due plaintiffs and on that day the account was closed by three promissory notes executed by Endom and delivered to plaintiffs, each note bearing that date and being for the sum of eight hundred and ninety-five dollars and ninety cents, due respectively at five, eight and twelve months.

At the time the indebtedness was contracted and the notes exe - euted Mrs. Catherine Endom, the wife of Fred. Endom, was alive. The community of acquets and gains existed between this husband and wife and the indebtedness was a community obligation. Mrs. Endom died on the 20th of July, 1893, Shortly after the notes were given. She left six children, issue of her marriage with Fred. Endom. Several of them were of age, the others minors, of whom their father became tutor, qualifying as such. All the property appearing upon the inventory of this tutorship had belonged to the community which had existed between the dead wife and the surviving husband.

When the first note given by Endom to plaintiffs matured, it was not paid. Whereupon an agent of plaintiffs appeared in Monroe and finding Endom unable to settle, it was agreed be.tween them that the old notes should be surrendered to Endom and new notes taken for their amount, plus the accrued interest. This was done on February 6, 1894, at which time the debtor executed four notes, each for seven hundred and four dollars and twenty cents, payable to the order of plaintiffs at stipulated intervals, with interest. The new [676]*676notes were delivered to plaintiffs and they surrendered the old ones-to Endom. The next day, by public act of mortgage, the latter hypothecated certain real property in Monroe to secure payment of the new notes. The property so mortgaged had belonged to the-community. -

Endom paid none of the notes thus secured, and in October, 1895, plaintiffs proceeded via ordinaria to recover judgment on them, all of which had then matured, and to enforce his mortgage rights. In speaking of the mortgage the'petition of this suit averred that Endom had mortgaged and hypothecated to plaintiffs “ all of his right, title and interest in and to ” the property which is described. This allegation differed, in this regard, from the act of mortgage itself, which assumed to cover the entire property.

Judgment was prayed for against Endom for the aggregate sum of the notes, with interest, etc., and for recognition and enforcement of the mortgage “ on his right, title and interest in the property.

No defence was made and the decree of the court was in accordance with the prayer.

Nothing in the present record apprises us whether or not this judgment has been executed or sought to be executed. Nor, if not executed, why not.

Two years from the date of this judgment the present suit was filed.

The petition sets forth that during the lifetime of his wife Ered. Endom had become indebted to plaintiffs in the manner hereinbefore described; that notes had been given to cover the same; that these notes represented a community obligation; that Mrs. Endom h'ad died leaving heirs and an estate; that the father had become tutor of the minor heirs; that subsequent to the death of ' the wife new notes for the old ones had been given by Endom and a mortgage executed to secure payment of same; that by the substitution of the new notes and mortgage the old indebtedness was not intended to be novated; that the property mortgaged to secure the new notes belonged to the community; that this mortgage covered and was intended to cover the entire property; that subsequently suit was brought on the notes and to foreclose the mortgage; that the heirs of Mrs. Endom were not made parties and the judgment only recognized the mortgage as operative on the interest of Endom himself in the property; that in addition to this judgment against Endom plain[677]*677tiffs are entitled to have their claim recognized as a debt of the community and as such binding upon all. of the community property; and that the estate of the dead wife is liable to them for the full amount thereof.

The prayer is that the major heirs of the wife be made parties defendant; that the minor heirs be cited through their tutor, and for judgment against them in solido for the sum of two thousand six hundred and eighty-seven dollars and seventy-eight cents, with eight per cent, interest from July 1, 1893, recognizing and decreeing same to be a debt due by. the community and as such binding on the dead wife’s share in the community property.

It will be observed that this is not a suit on the last notes given by Mr. Endom to plaintiffs. These were already merged in the judgment rendered in the suit brought against him individually.

If it be an action on the notes first given, those of July 1, 1893, then it is a suit on notes not in possession of plaintiffs, which they had surrendered to the debtor, and which, in all probability, are not in existence at all.

If it be a proceeding on the original indebtedness between Endom and the plaintiffs, then it is an action on an account stated, which was closed and liquidated by the notes of July 1, 1893.

Defendants considered the suit an action on the notes first given by Endom, those of July 1, 1893, and prayed oyer of the same. Plaintiffs answered this prayer for oyer by the declaration that they did not have possession of the notes.

Defendants then, as matter of defence against the action, pleaded the extinguishment by novation of the pre-existing obligation of the community, to-wit, the notes of July 1, 1893, averring that the creditor had, after the dissolution of the community, received and accepted the individual notes and mortgage of the husband in lieu of the notes of the community, thereby discharging the obligation of the latter, and, subsequently, had sued on the husband’s notes, recovered a personal judgment against him and a decree for enforcement of the mortgage he had given, in which proceeding respondents were not cited or made parties defendant. They aver that this operated a renunciation and discharge of whatever legal rights, if any, there existed against respondents and their property in favor of plaintiffs.

In any event they allege they are not liable personally and solid[678]*678arily as averred by plaintiffs, because the succession of their-deceased mother was not accepted unconditionally, but with benefit, of inventory.

On the trial plaintiffs offered the depositions of two witnesses, parties in their employ, to prove the allegations of their petition, to the reception of which testimony defendants objected on the ground that plaintiffs had declared on certain notes and that parol evidence was not admissible to prove the existence and contents of the notes in view of the fact that there was no allegation of their loss or destruction; and, further, having declared on notes, evidence was not admissible to establish an indebtedness on an open account.

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

Related

Albert Steinfeld & Co. v. Wing Wong
128 P. 354 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1912)
White Hall Agr. Co. v. Police Jury
54 So. 337 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1911)
Sucker State Drill Co. v. Henry Loewer & Co.
38 So. 399 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1905)
Studebaker Bros. Manufacturing v. Endom
26 So. 90 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1899)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
23 So. 872, 50 La. Ann. 674, 1898 La. LEXIS 537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/studebaker-bros-mfg-co-v-endom-la-1898.