Judice v. Neda

The plaintiff opposes the seizure of immovable property, made at the suit of the defendant, on the ground that this property was conveyed to *485her by her husband, to replace her paraphernal effects alienated during marriage.

The defence is, that the husband was insolvent at the date of the sale, and that Art. 2421 of the Code does not extend to the case of a husband in failing circumstances.

This is clearly an error; the wife, before she obtains a separation of property is bound to allege and prove the embarrassment of her husband, and to justify her belief that his property may not be sufficient…