Baker v. Lee

Decided February 1, 1897

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1897-02-01

1, When mortgage creditors with a common interest,whose aggregate claims exceed two thousand dollars, unite in a suit to have canceled, on the ground of simulation, a mortgage exceeding two thousand dollars, the Judgment ia their suit is appealable. 2 An. 984.-; 43 An. 1041; 2An. 908; 35 An. 206. 2. The sheriff’s act of sale stating compliance by the purchaser with the terms of of sale, spread on the public records, will protect the bona fide mortgagee who acquires his mortgage for value from the recorded owner on the faith of his title. This case is distinguished from that of the People’s Bank vs. David, recently decided. 3. The members of a planting firm acquiring immovable property become joint owners, and a mortgage by one, though using the firm name, will bind only his half of the property. O. C., Art. 2870, par. 5; 3 La. 497; 10 La. 420; 17 La. 596; 47 An. 346. 4. A mortgage can not be established by parol, nor will a ratification in writing relate backso as to give that validity to the prejudiceof other creditors to the alleged mortgage it did not possess when executed. Civil Code, Art. 3365; 2 La. 572. 5. The clerk of the District Court, ex-officio parish recorder, is liable for the loss arising from his omission to record in the book of mortgages and privileges an. act of sale placed in his hands, giving rise to the vendor’s privilege and reserving a mortgage for the unpaid portion of the price. Constitution, Art. 121; Revised Statutes, Secs. 3550, 3580, 3066, 3091; C. C. 2231.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1897-02-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently October 1939

6 state decisions

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 →

¶1On Application for Rehearing.

¶2On this application for the rehearing our attention is directed to that part of our decree condemning defendants to pay costs.. The litigation is between the plaintiffs, and not the original *880defendants, but the defendants in the rule to erase mortgages. Our judgment is against the defendants in the rule, not against the original defendants. We will therefore make our judgment more specific as to costs.

¶3It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that our former judgment be so amended as to direct, and accordingly it is now ordered and decreed that the defendants in the rule to erase mortgages, the Ouachita National Bank and Meyer Bros., pay the costs on that rule incurred in the lower court and on this appeal; in all other respects our former decree to remain unchanged, and to stand as rendered.