Pons v. Yazoo & M. V. R.
Citations
- 122 La. 156
- 47 So. 449
- 1908 La. LEXIS 426
Syllabus
<p>1. MORTGAGES (§ 529*) — SALE — ACTIONS TO Set Aside — Time to Sue — “Judgment.”</p> <p>An order of seizure and sale is not a judgment in the legal sense of the term, and an action to annul a sale made under executory process is not an action to annul a judgment, and as such subject to the prescription of one year.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Mortgages, Cent. Dig. § 1542; Dec. Dig. § 529.*</p> <p>For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 4, pp. 3827-3842; yol. 8, pp. 7695-7696.]</p> <p>2. Moktgages (§ 529*) — Sale—Cure by Prescription.</p> <p>Where there was no existing mortgage at the time an order of seizure and sale was issued, a sale thereunder is radically null, and not curable by the prescription of five years.</p> <p>[Ed. Note — For other cases, see Mortgages, Dec. Dig. § 529.*]</p> <p>3. Mortgages (§ 587*) — Sale — Operation-Persons Concluded.</p> <p>■ The title of a third possessor, a stranger to the proceedings, cannot be divested by a sale under executory process issued on a mortgage note which had been previously paid.</p> <p>[Ed.' Note. — For other cases, see Mortgages, Cent. Dig. §§ 1685, 1685% ; Dec. Dig. § 587:*]</p> <p>4. Husband and Wipe (§ 47*) — Conveyance —Consideration—Payment oe Parapher-nal Claims.</p> <p>The husband may lawfully convey property to his wife in payment of her just paraphernal claims, whether there be a separation of property between them or not, and the law obligates him to warrant the title against prior mortgages on the property, when the transfer is not made subject to mortgages and liens.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Husband and Wife, Cent. Dig. § 235; Dec. Dig. § 47.*]</p> <p>5.JHUSBAND AND WlEE (§ 47*) — CONVEYANCE In Payment oe Paraphernal Funds — Dation En Paiement — Eefect.</p> <p>Where a dation en paiement is made by the husband to the wife to replace her para-phernal funds, the legal title vests in the wife, and not a mere equity representing the value of the property over and abo
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that the application of a federal regulation’s standard to facts does not itself trigger federal question jurisdiction
- “Since this case ‘does not call into question the validity of a federal statute or the conduct of a federal actor,’ it ‘does not present the unusually strong federal interest required to qualify for the federal forum.”’
- “Since this case ‘does not call into question the validity of a federal statute or the conduct of a federal actor,’ it ‘does not present the unusually strong federal interest required to qualify for the federal forum.”’
- “Since this case ‘does not call into question the validity of a federal statute or the conduct of a federal actor,’ it ‘does not present the unusually strong federal interest required to qualify for the federal forum.”’
- “Since this case ‘does not call into question the validity of a federal statute or the conduct of a federal actor,’ it ‘does not present the unusually strong federal interest required to qualify for the federal forum.”’
- “Since this case ‘does not call into question the validity of a federal statute or the conduct of a federal actor,’ it ‘does not present the unusually strong federal interest required to qualify for the federal forum.”’
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Land
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.