Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Statement of the Case.

thirds of the appraised value, which had been placed at the sum of $6000, and, no bid having been made, was advertised for sale on a credit of twelve months; that on July 30, 1887, her husband, as defendant, served notice and protest on the marshal of the prior incumbrance in favor of complainant for $7500 and interest, and that any sale for a price less than the amount of such prior incumbrance would be invalid; that notwithstanding the notice and protest the marshal, acting under the direction of Nalle & Co.'s solicitor, accepted the bid of one of them for $2000. Complainant charged that her attempted renunciation of her rights authorizing the erasure of her mortgage was of no effect under the laws of Louisiana, and set forth the grounds on which that charge was based; that her mortgage was the first incumbrance and superior to the mortgage in favor of Nalle & Co.; that no sale could be made to a purchaser for less than the amount of such mortgage; and that the attempted sale was absolutely null and void. It was further averred that Nalle & Co. pretended to have paid the taxes on the mortgaged property for the years 1882, 1883, 1884, 1885, and 1886, amounting to the sum of $624.60, and to have become subrogated by such payments to the privilege of mortgage existing in favor of the State and parish, and claimed a priority of lien on the mortgaged premises in consequence of such payment and subrogation; that no such taxes were legally due on the mortgaged property; and that Nalle & Co. and Mrs. Mary Nalle acquired no right by such payment and attempted subrogation. The petition then charged that the revenue acts of Louisiana for 1880, 1882, 1884, and 1886, in pursuance of which these taxes were levied, were unconstitutional and void as repugnant to the state constitution. It was further alleged that notwithstanding complainant had a first and prior incumbrance for $7500 and interest, Nalle & Co. did not make complainant a party to the foreclosure proceedings, according to the practice of the Circuit Court as a court of equity, and had caused the proceedings to be brought in disregard of complainant's rights, and had endeavored to have the mortgaged property sold and adjudicated to one of themselves for a low price, etc.; that if the

Statement of the Case.

renunciation of complainant was invalid as charged, no valid sale could be made for a price not exceeding the amount of the prior mortgage, and the attempted sale would be null and void; that if the renunciation for any reason not known to the complainant was valid and binding, complainant was entitled to redeem by paying the amount of the prior incumbrances, if any such there might be; and that for the purpose of securing equitable protection, it had become necessary for complainant to intervene in the foreclosure suit, and to oppose the confirmation of the sale in order that a reference might be made to determine the priority of liens and adjust all conflicting claims.

Petitioner therefore prayed to be allowed to file this intervention pro interesse suo, and that Nalle & Co. (that is, Flower and the heirs of Nalle) be summoned to answer by writ of subpoena served on their solicitor; that the sale of the mortgaged premises by the marshal on July 30, 1887, be not confirmed but be set aside; that a reference be made to have the priority of liens determined and all conflicting claims adjusted; that a valid title be assured to the purchaser, and a sale made for the best interests of all concerned; that the attempted renunciation of her mortgage in favor of Nalle & Co. be declared null and void, and her mortgage recognized as the first and superior incumbrance on the property; that the revenue acts of Louisiana for 1880, 1882, 1884, and 1886 be declared unconstitutional, null and void; that the taxes levied in pursuance thereof be declared of no effect, and for general relief. This intervention was not sworn to, and was signed "Wade R. Young, solicitor." On the 24th of October, 1887, Mrs. Young and her husband prayed to amend their original petition by alleging that although Young removed with his family from Louisiana to Mississippi in 1876, he did not at that time establish a residence in Mississippi, and that it was not until January, 1883, that he abandoned finally his intention to return to Louisiana, renounced his residence and citizenship there, and declared himself a citizen of Mississippi with the intention of remaining permanently.

The copy attached to the intervening petition showed an

Statement of the Case.

act of mortgage, March 18, 1868, by Wade R. Young, William C. Young, and Margaret A. Young, of the parish of Tensas, to Miss Eliza H. Young, to secure their certain promissory note for $11,250, payable with interest at eight per cent one year after date, on the property in question, being part of Lake St. Peter's plantation, with a confession of judgment; Mrs. B. F Liddell, wife of Wade R. Young, and Mrs. Willie T. Evans, wife of William C. Young, ratifying said act of mortgage, and renouncing all their rights in the property therein mortgaged, upon due examination separate and apart from their husbands; and an acceptance by Eliza H. Young. Upon the record of this mortgage in the parish of Tensas appeared the cancellation of five ninths thereof, being the indebtedness of W. C. Young, one of the mortgagors, and special legatee for M. A. Young, deceased, leaving four ninths of the indebtedness of Wade R. Young for himself and as special legatee for M. A. Young, deceased, still unpaid; also the cancellation and erasure of the mortgage to the extent of the remaining four ninths on the 5th of June, 1882, under a power of attorney signed by Wade R. Young and his wife, Mrs. B. F. Young, whereby Charles Young of the parish of Tensas was constituted and appointed attorney in fact with full and complete power in the name of Mrs. Young to cause the act of mortgage to be cancelled and erased. This power of attorney was executed June 1, 1882, in the presence of two witnesses,. who signed the act with the parties, as did also the notary. The cancellation and power of attorney were duly certified as correct copies of the original as the same appeared on file and of record in the office of the clerk of the ninth district court of Tensas parish.

The act of transfer from Mrs. Metcalfe to Mrs. Young was dated December 2, 1876, and stated that Mrs. Metcalfe, residing in the parish of Catahoula; Wade R. Young of the parish of Concordia; and Mrs. B. F. Liddell, wife of Wade R. Young, "herein represented by her special attorney and attorney in fact, Volney M. Liddell, with a procuration hereto annexed," personally appeared before the notary and declared that whereas Mrs. Metcalfe, as sole surviving residuary legatee of

Statement of the Case.

Miss Eliza H. Young, was the holder and owner of the note of Wade R. Young, William C. Young, and Margaret A. Young for the sum of $11,250, secured by act of mortgage; and whereas Mrs. Metcalfe was indebted to Wade R. Young for certain sums of money; and whereas Wade R. Young was indebted to his wife, Mrs. B. F. Liddell, for $7500, the dotal and paraphernal property of his wife, received by him, and converted to his own use, for the repayment of which his wife had a legal mortgage on the interest of her husband in his father's estate; therefore Mrs. Metcalfe transferred and assigned to Mrs. Young four ninths interest in said promissory note and mortgage, being the portion thereof due by Wade R. Young, and bearing on his interest in the St. Peter plantation, and warranted the validity thereof; and Wade R. Young declared that in consideration of the transfer and warranty by Mrs. Metcalfe, he thereby acknowledged the receipt of the four ninths interest of the note and mortgage, and granted to Mrs. Metcalfe an acquittance pro tanto of the sums due by her to him; and Mrs. Young declared that she accepted the transfer and assignment of said four ninths interest, and, in consideration thereof, and of the warranty by Mrs. Metcalfe of the validity of the note and mortgage, joined her husband "in so far as the mortgage accorded to her by law to secure the repayment of her paraphernal funds may bear upon the interest of her said husband in the succession of his deceased father, in giving to the said Mrs. S. J. Metcalfe an acquittance and release pro tanto of the sum due by her." This was signed by Wade R. Young, V. M. Liddell, attorney; S. J. Metcalfe, two witnesses, and the notary public, and a certificate was attached by the recorder of Catahoula parish that the foregoing was a true and correct copy of the original act of transfer and agreement on file in his office and recorded in its records December 6, 1876. There was also a certificate, under date of October 18, 1887, of the clerk of the ninth district court of Tensas parish that the foregoing was a true and correct copy of the copy of the act of transfer and agreement, as the same now appear on file in my office and of record there." The copy of the judgment of Mrs. Young against her husband was as follows:

[ocr errors]

Statement of the Case.

"9th District Court, Parish of Tensas.

"Mrs. Bethia F. Liddell

vs.

Wade R. Young, her husband.

No. 3050.

"In this case a regular trial was had after issue joined, and the law and the evidence being in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that there be judgment of separation, dissolving the community of acquets and gains between the plaintiff, Mrs. Bethia F. Liddell, and the defendant, Wade R. Young, and that the said plaintiff do have and recover judgment against the defendant for the sum of $7500, seven thousand five hundred dollars, with a recognition of her mortgage on the property described in the petition, and that the same be sold to satisfy said judgment and costs.

"Thus done, read, and signed in open court this 9th day of July, 1881. WADE H. HOUGH,

[blocks in formation]

This was certified to by the clerk of the ninth district court as "a true and correct copy of original judgment rendered in suit of Bethia F. Liddell vs. Wade R. Young, her husband,' as the same appears on file and of record in my office in mortgage book 'O,' page 649 et seq., on June 5, 1882."

On the same day the intervening petition was filed, Young filed what was entitled an "opposition to confirmation of sale," in which it was alleged that plaintiffs had attempted to proceed according to the practice of the courts of Louisiana, and in doing so had violated the rules and practice prescribed in the conduct of equity cases in the Circuit Court; that there was a want of parties; that there existed a prior incumbrance on the property fully equal to or exceeding its value, and that by the laws of Louisiana no valid sale of the property could be made for a price not exceeding the amount of such prior incumbrance. He then set forth the mortgage of 1868 in favor of Miss Eliza H. Young, to secure the $11,250 note; the transaction between Mrs. Metcalfe, his wife and him

« AnteriorContinuar »