23 La. Ann. 637
Decided July 15, 1871
Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1871-07-15
<p>The community is dissolved by the death of one of the spouses, and the title to one-lialf thereof vests absolutely in the heirs, and the other half in the survivor. The survivor is, therefore, without legal authority to encumber or mortgage the one-half interest of the heirs in tho community.</p> <p>The parish court has jurisdiction of an action of partition of the community between tho heirs and tho survivor without reference to the amount involved.</p> <p>In this case notes were given with mortgage to secure advances to be made and supplies furnished and to bo furnished. At tho close of the transactions, plaintiffs bring suit on the account current, which includes in its items the amounts of the notes, and they ask a recognition and enforcement of the mortgage given to secure tho notes.</p> <p>Hold — That tho notes having boon given for a particular purpose, namely, to enable the merchants to negotiate them, and having been taken up by tho agents of the plaintiffs, confusion took place, and they, tho notes, "became extinguished, and the mortgage given to secure them was also extinguished; and that as the mortgage was only given to secure the notes, it had no effect as a security for the account.</p>
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1918
1 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1871-07-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1dissenting. All that was necessary to the decision of the case of Ward v. Douglas, 22 An. 463, was the settlement of the question whether or not the plaintiffs herein were entitled to executory process. The question of the existence of the notes and their accessory mortgage is still open.
¶2I think the notes still exist to the amount of advances made and remaining unpaid, and that the mortgage may be enforced.