Legal Opinion

Spence & Goldstein v. Clay

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided February 3, 1930No. 29089PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtSt. Paul, J.

This is a suit to enforce a mortgage via ordinaria upon property belonging to minors. The defense is that the money was borrowed for speculative purposes and the minors are not bound. R. C. C. arts. 339, 340, authorizes the mortgage of minor’s property on the advice of a family meeting. Act No. 110 of 1920 (Cf. Act No. 319 of 1926) authorizes the judge having jurisdiction over the minors to act for said minors in any matter whatsoever without the advice of a family meeting, whenever the 'tutor shall lay before him in detail what he proposes to do on behalf of said minors, and the undertutor…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Scottish American Mortgage Co. v. OgdenSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1896
  2. Hall v. WoodsSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1849
  3. Williams v. ChotardSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1856
  4. Cane v. CawthonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1880
  5. Pilie v. StewartSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1839

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Succession of FontanoSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1941

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

Powered by the Exa API