Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Rob. 26

Copley v. Dowell

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided October 15, 1841

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1841-10-15

Action before the Court of Probates for the parish of Ouachita,.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1841-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1956

2 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

30184118501860187018801890190019101920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Martin, J.

¶1The plaintiff is appellant from a judgment which rejects his claim against the estate of one Nancy M. Strong alias Kirkpatrick, deceased. It appears he purchased this claim for one dollar at a sheriff’s sale on a credit of twelve months ; being the claim of his debtor, Morrison, who had been employed as an overseer for more than a year, at the request of his deceased sister made *28in her will, on a plantation which was part of her estate : hot the plaintiff neglected to give notice of this purchase to the defendant, as executor of said estate, who in the mean while settled with Morrison, from whorn he obtained a final discharge.

¶2The petition alleges that 'this settlement and discharge were made and given by the connivance and fraud of the said defendant and Morrison, with the view of defeating the plaintiff’s claim.

¶3It does not appear to us that the court erred in rejecting this demand. A sale is complete as to the parlies thereto, as soon as they agree on its terms. But as to persons not parties to it, a deliyery must taire place before their rights can be affected. On the sale or transfer of a debt, the delivery takes place by notice given to the debtor of the transfer having taken place. Civ. Code, arts. 2612, 2613.

¶4The plaintiff in this case had acquired no right under his sale, against the defendant, at the time the latter settled with Morrison and took his discharge. If however he has any claim on the ground of connivance and fraud, it is not one which he can enforce in the court of probates against the defendant in his representative capacity. His remedy is against the defendant personally, and! in a court of ordinary jurisdiction.

¶5Judgment affirmed.

/1/rob/26 · .json · Public domain