Succession of Heitzler

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Succession of Heitzler

25 La. Ann. 116

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedFebruary 15, 1873

DocketNo. 4552

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 25 La. Ann. 116 (Succession of Heitzler) 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

Succession of Heitzler, 25 La. Ann. 116 (La. 1873).

Pincite

Opinion

Wyly, J.

Michael Prank opposed the final account of the administrator of the succession of John Heitzler, on the ground that his olaim of $435 is a mortgage and vendor’s privilege debt, and should be paid out of the funds to be distributed in preference to the claim for $1000 set nil by the necessitous widow of the deceased, the funds being insufficient to pay all the debts.

The court maintained the opposition; the administrator and the surviving widow have appealed.

It appears that the debt due to Frank is evidenced by a twelve months boud given by John Heitzler at the sale of his own prox>erty by a judgment creditor.

The question is, does the adjudication of a debtor’s property to himself create the vendor’s privilege to secure the twelve months bond which he gives. If the claim of the opponent be secured by the vendor’s privilege, the court did not err in allowing it to be paid by preference over that of the necessitous widow. We think an adjudication of this character does not create the vendor’s privilege, because it does not transfer the ownership of the property, nor change the character of the title and possession. It neither satisfies the judgment nor novates the debt; it is not strictly a sale, but only a means by which a creditor acquires additional security for his debt. 12 R. 206; 2 M. 178, 328, 331; 7 N. S. 221; 9 La. 92; 8 R. 180; 10 R. 154; 2 An. 239 ; 3 An. 381; 11 An. 184.

[117]*117As there was no sale there was no vendor’s privilege. The court therefore erred in allowing the claim of the opponent in preference to that of the necessitous widow. Revised Statutes of 1870, section 1693.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment appealed from be annulled,, and it is ordered that the claim of one thousand dollars set up by the necessitous widow be allowed as a preference claim; that the claim of the opponent be placed on the final account as an ordinary debt, and that the account as thus amended be homologated and become the-judgment of the court.

It is further ordered that appellee pay costs of appeal.

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

Wyly, J.

Michael Prank opposed the final account of the administrator of the succession of John Heitzler, on the ground that his olaim of $435 is a mortgage and vendor’s privilege debt, and should be paid out of the funds to be distributed in preference to the claim for $1000 set nil by the necessitous widow of the deceased, the funds being insufficient to pay all the debts.

The court maintained the opposition; the administrator and the surviving widow have appealed.

It appears that the debt due to Frank is evidenced by a twelve months boud given by John Heitzler at the sale of his own prox>erty by a judgment creditor.

The question is, does the adjudication of a debtor’s property to himself create the vendor’s privilege to secure the twelve months bond which he gives. If the claim of the opponent be secured by the vendor’s privilege, the court did not err in allowing it to be paid by preference over that of the necessitous widow. We think an adjudication of this character does not create the vendor’s privilege, because it does not transfer the ownership of the property, nor change the character of the title and possession. It neither satisfies the judgment nor novates the debt; it is not strictly a sale, but only a means by which a creditor acquires additional security for his debt. 12 R. 206; 2 M. 178, 328, 331; 7 N. S. 221; 9 La. 92; 8 R. 180; 10 R. 154; 2 An. 239 ; 3 An. 381; 11 An. 184.

[117]*117As there was no sale there was no vendor’s privilege. The court therefore erred in allowing the claim of the opponent in preference to that of the necessitous widow. Revised Statutes of 1870, section 1693.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment appealed from be annulled,, and it is ordered that the claim of one thousand dollars set up by the necessitous widow be allowed as a preference claim; that the claim of the opponent be placed on the final account as an ordinary debt, and that the account as thus amended be homologated and become the-judgment of the court.

It is further ordered that appellee pay costs of appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 La. Ann. 116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/succession-of-heitzler-la-1873.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack