Succession of Gremillon
Supreme Court of Louisiana
from the District Court of Pointe Coupee, Farrar, J. contended, 1. That the first mortgage was not legally renewed by the second, the latter not containing any description whatever of the property mentioned in the former, as required by arts. 3273, 3274 C. C. See also Ells v. Sims, 2 Annual 251. Duranton, page 427, no. 369 to 372 C. C. 3333. Shepherd v. Orleans Cotton Press, 2 An. 100. Ibid pp. 520, 768, 799. 2. That, the renunciation, in the act of mortgage of June 29th,…
Read the full summary
from the District Court of Pointe Coupee, Farrar, J. contended, 1. That the first mortgage was not legally renewed by the second, the latter not containing any description whatever of the property mentioned in the former, as required by arts. 3273, 3274 C. C. See also Ells v. Sims, 2 Annual 251. Duranton, page 427, no. 369 to 372 C. C. 3333. Shepherd v. Orleans Cotton Press, 2 An. 100. Ibid pp. 520, 768, 799. 2. That, the renunciation, in the act of mortgage of June 29th, 1838, is illegal and null, in this, that it does not appear from the act itself, nor from any evidence dehors the act,…
1Opinion of the Court
The judgment of the court was pronounced by
Súdele J.
The principal controversy in this case is between the wife of the deceased, who has renounced the community, and Poydras, the appellant.
The deceased executed a mortgage in favor of Poydras, in 1834, which was recorded in that year. In 1838, another mortgage of additional property was executed for the same debt. This act recited that the deceased was indebted to Poydras in a capital sum of $6450 95, being the same debt mentioned in the act before the same notary, on the 15th October, 1834, by which a mortgage had been given; and, upon stating…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Johnson v. PilsterSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1843
3Cited by1 opinion
- Martin v. PichonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1916