Legal Opinion · Dissent

Mase v. Wetzel

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided March 30, 1932No. 30880Published

1Dissent

OVERTON, X

(dissenting).

If this proceeding had been one via executiva, it would be a matter of no difficulty to concur in the opinion of. the majority in this case, for it is well established by a ju risprudenee commencing almost at the beginning that, in proceedings via executiva, property in the hands of a succession may be seized and sold in the foreclosure of a mortgage, authorizing a proceeding by that method. However, the proceeding in this case, although it commenced as one via executiva, did not continue as such, but was converted, no matter for what reason, into one via ordinaria.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Fontelieu v. FontelieuSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1906
  2. Succession of IrwinSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1881
  3. Simpson v. BulkleySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1916
  4. Hall & Lisle in Liquidation v. BeldenSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1877

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API