Succession of McCloskey
Supreme Court of Louisiana
j^PPEAL from the Second District Court, parish of Orleans. Bissot, T. Gilmore & Sons, for executors, contended : First — -The effect of that sale (it being a sale, under a decree of the probate court, to pay a debt of the successions of Dubois and Mish) was to extinguish any mortgage or privilege that might have •existed on the property.
Read the full summary
j^PPEAL from the Second District Court, parish of Orleans. Bissot, T. Gilmore & Sons, for executors, contended : First — -The effect of that sale (it being a sale, under a decree of the probate court, to pay a debt of the successions of Dubois and Mish) was to extinguish any mortgage or privilege that might have •existed on the property. Succession of Triche, 29 An. 385; 27 An. :279; 24 An. 482 ; 23 An. 298; 21 An. 424, 253; Hennen’s Digest, page '962, No. 2. “Second — Beyond that, the evidence shows that the city taxes of 1869 and 1870 were collected by the sheriff under writs of fieri…
1Opinion
On Rehearing.
Marr, J.
The rehearing was granted, in this case, to David M. Hol-lingsworth, and to the succession of McCloskey as against the city of New Orleans. No complaint was made as to that part of the original-decree which affirmed the judgment of the district court on the opposition of E. H. Earrar; and it became final by the lapse of time. Amici' curiae have asked a modification of our opinion, in so far as it relates-to the prescription in favor of sheriffs and their sureties; and we have-carefully reconsidered the whole case.
I
Our decision in the claim and opposition of Hollingsworth…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Mulhollan v. HendersonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1842