A. Lehman & Co. v. Coulon

Citations

• 105 La. 431

Syllabus

<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>Motion to Dismiss.</p> <p>The different amounts to be considered in order to determine whether the salt was simulated pel non, being in the aggregate more than two thousand dollars, and the issues, in the main, including more than that sum, the motion to dismiss is not granted.</p> <p>On tee Mebits.</p> <p>1. In a suit by a creditor against the husband and wife to have a dation r.n paiement decreed simulated, the husband was permitted to testify to the extent that his own interest was involved. He had some interest involved, besides, he had acted as his wife’s agent, and, in consequence, he was 'a competent witness. Moreover, without his testimony, there was enough testimony before the court to sustain the sale as not being a mere simulation.</p> <p>2. The wife, separated in property, whose community interests with the husband are dissolved, still retains the right to recover against her husband any amount which he has received for her and converted to his own use.</p> <p>3. The wife received amounts, made crops, and realized revenues on her separate property, for which her husband, by using same, became liable. The testimony does not prove that the husband made no revenues and that the result oi his exertions did not go to the support cf the family. In the absence of that proof, the amount required is not deducted from her separate right in order thereby to reduce it to nil and give rise to the conclusion that the wife has no separate right, as the whole amount went to the support of the family.</p> <p>4. Sums paid previous to a dation en paiement for the support of the family, from all appearances, by the husband, will not be charged to the wife on the ground that she is liable for necessaries for the family.</p> <p>5. The dation en paiement by the husband to the wife was not a simulation.</p>