Fontenet v. Debaillon

Citations

• 8 La. Ann. 509

Syllabus

<p>Where by the terms of sale of the property of an insolvent succession, fixed by the creditcrasy ifite property was to be sold on a credit—the “ purchasers giving their obligation, with two approved securities', each,” &c.—it was the duty of the Administrator himself to require two good sureties, and the responsibility is his, if it was not done.</p> <p>Where by the terms of such a sale, 'the price of the property sold was to bear ten per cent interest until paid, the Administrator is chargeable with the interest until the principal is paid ; ancB lit is no defence for him that he paid some of the claims against the estate before the expiration a3' the credit term.</p> <p>By the Court: It is urged that the plaintiff has lost the benefit of his judicial mortgage by hi&fhilure to re-inscribe his judgment within ten years. It is far from clear that this principle is applicable to mortgages which an administrator is bound to raise for the purpose of selling the property and settling the debt? of the succession. But even if it is, the plaintiff obtained a judgment that his claim should be paid with the benefit of his judicial mortgage. Besides it was the duty of the administrator to have p id the plaiDtiff, as a creditor with ajudicial mortgage in 1841, and he cannot tak1 advantage of any thing which has occurred from his constant resistance of payment until now, ten years afterwards. We consider, therefore, that the plaintiff has not lost the benefit of his. judicial mortgage.</p>