Brother v. Saul

Spofford, J.,

with whom concurred, Lea, J., dissenting. Upon the authority of the cases of Saul v. His Creditors, 5 N. S. 569; Devlin v. His Creditors, 2 La. 361; Canizo's Syndic v. Cuadra, 2 L. 459; and Shaw, Syndic, v. *226Newton, 3 L. 528, I think the judgment appealed from in this case, should be affirmed.

The pretended pledge of the bank stock was void as to other and even subsequent creditors of Conrey, and it invested Saul with no privilege upon the stock, under the Articles 3124, 3125 of the Civil Code, which were in full force at the time.

There is certainly an equity in favor of the…