Duncan v. Armant
Supreme Court of Louisiana
from the Third District Court of New Orleans, Kennedy, J. contended that there should be judgment for the plaintiff, citing Civil Code, 2589, 2595. Stat. 10 March, 1834, s. 1. (Bui. & C’s. Dig, p. 8). Stat. 5 March, 1842, s. 3. (Sess.
Read the full summary
from the Third District Court of New Orleans, Kennedy, J. contended that there should be judgment for the plaintiff, citing Civil Code, 2589, 2595. Stat. 10 March, 1834, s. 1. (Bui. & C’s. Dig, p. 8). Stat. 5 March, 1842, s. 3. (Sess. Acts. p. 212.) 1. The omission of the plaintiff to obtain the previous authorization of the judge for the second sale, renders it iny.alid. 4 Rob. 132. 2. The period is limited within which a vendor can exercise against the purchaser the remedy of sale a la folic enchcre; the proceedings must be commenced before the end of ten days. 3. The sale should have been…
1Opinion of the Court
The judgment of tlie court was pronounced by
Rost, J.
The plaiutiff claims from the defendant, as damages, the difference between the price at which two slaves belonging to the succession of Lan*85na were adjudged to him, and the price which they brought at a sale a la folie enchére, after he refused to comply with the terms of the sale, and was duly put in default. The defendant resists the demand upon three grounds: 1st. That no order of the Probate Court was obtained for the resale of the slaves, which being succession property, could not be sold, unless the executor was expressly authorized by…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Stewart v. PauldingSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1835
3Cited by4 opinions
- Stockelback v. BradleySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1925
- Roussell v. HughesSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1925
- Spellman v. BradleySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1927
- Stockelback v. BradleySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1925