Poole v. Cook
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL from the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany. Duncan, Judge ad hoc. 1. Rural property, and not urban, is exempt from seizure under Article 645, Code of Practice. Parmers alone are entitled to the exemption Cruly’s case, 25 An. 219; 26 An. 645 ; 28 An. 575. 2. Whilst the Constitution of 1879 did not repeal or afreet rights existing at the time of its adoption, registry was necessary to perpetuate the light.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany. Duncan, Judge ad hoc. 1. Rural property, and not urban, is exempt from seizure under Article 645, Code of Practice. Parmers alone are entitled to the exemption Cruly’s case, 25 An. 219; 26 An. 645 ; 28 An. 575. 2. Whilst the Constitution of 1879 did not repeal or afreet rights existing at the time of its adoption, registry was necessary to perpetuate the light. Arts. 219 and 220, Constitution of 1879. 3. The conditions of the exemption are; (1) a bona fide ownership ; (2) ehildien or some one dependent upon him for…
1Opinion of the Court
*332Tlie opinion of the Court was delivered by
Poüiié, J.
Plaintiff enjoined tlie execution of a judgment against him in favor of John Chaffe & Sons, on the grounds that the property seized is exempt from seizure as his homestead, under the provisions of Art. 645 of the Code, of Practice.
The. answer is a general denial, coupled with a prayer for' damages, and this appeal is taken from a judgment in favor of plaintiff.
Among other obstacles thrown in plaintiff’s way, to retain as a homestead tlie property seized, it is contended that the property is an urban estate, and as such, not subject, to the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Frame v. FelixSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Davis v. Mayor of NewarkSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1892
- Martin's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894