Succession of Bienvenu

Citations

• 106 La. 595

Syllabus

<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>1. The borrower deposited an amount to pay the price of the lot. The homestead company, with this money, paid for the lot and took a transfer in its name for the account of the borrower. After having purchased the lot, the company placed improvements thereon and sold lot and improvements to the borrower, who, as relates to the lot, only received that for which she had paid. It was not a transaction such as is contemplated by Act 115 of 1888 where the borrower sells property to the homestead company, and afterward it is sold back by it burdened by the terms of the act with vendor’s privilege. The company had a vendor’s privilege and the property burdened with a mortgage in favor of a third person is subject to the claims of this mortgagee.</p> <p>2. Under the circumstances, the right of the homestead company is recognized and the lot is to he appraised separately from the improvements thereon and the amount distributed between the mortgage creditor and the homestead company in proportion that the separate appraisement will bear to the whole appraisement.</p> <p>3. The clauses and sections of Act 115 of 1888 form part of one object. The Act embraces one object, also its title, and is not unconstitutional on the score that it contains many objects.</p> <p>4. The vendor’s privilege claimed not being recognized, the placing the title in the name of the borrower is not subject to successful attack on the ground that the Act 115 of 1888 contains peculiar and special privileges granted to homestead associations in derogation of the Constitution.</p>