Gomez v. Courcelle

Citations

• 8 La. Ann. 304

Syllabus

<p>The decision in AleoMnder v. Jacobs, 5 M. 682, was made before the adoption of the Code of Practice, and is not law now. The Code of Practice (arts. GS, 69,) not only defines the hypothecary action, but declares under what circumstances it may be enforced, and no where is it laid down that when mortgaged property has been seized and sold, the mortgagee, before proceeding against the third possessor, must first bring suit against the seizing creditor to obtain payment out of the proceeds of the object he has sold</p> <p>It is not necessary before proceeding against the third possessor of mortgaged property, for the hypothecary creditor to shew that afi. fa. has been sued out against the debtor and a return of miUa bona made.</p> <p>The law accords priority to the oldest mortgage, and a sale under a younger tacit mortgage does not defeat the older. The property affected passes cum onoro^ and the vendee receives it burthened with its prior incumbrance.</p>