TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Succession of Lucas

Succession of G. M. Lucas.—P. J. Dubos and Wife, Intervenors

Succession of Lucas, 11 La. Ann. 296 (1856)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Louisiana · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 15, 1856
Judges
Spofford
Citations
11 La. Ann. 296
Headnotes
Foreign judgments have no executory force in this State until they acquire it by the judgment and fiat of our own tribunals. To procure such a fiat a personal action must be brought upon the judgment — an action, the prescription of which is governed by Article 3508 of the Code. The prescription of actions is regulated by the law of the forum.
Summary
Ai-PPEAL from the Second District Court of New Orleans, Lea J.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Spofford

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Spofford, J.

On the 5th June, 1831, Bazin & Gamier obtained a judgment for upward of 11,000 francs against Gabriel Marie Lucas before the “ Tribunal de Premiére Instance ” of Pointe a Pitre in the island of Guadaloupe.

In the same year Lucas removed from Guadaloupe to the city of New Orleans, where he engaged in commerce and continued to reside, until his death, in 1851.

Cavaroc was appointed curator of his succession, and in due time filed an account which was homologated, except so far as opposed by one Glausmadec, who claimed to be a creditor for a very large amount, but who discontinued his opposition after evidence was taken tending ts rebut it.

On the 20th April, 1853, the present appellants, Dubos, Mieltes and wife filed what is called an intervention, in which they claim to be creditors of the deceased as subrogees of Bazin <& Gamier by virtue of the Guadaloupe judgment rendered against Lucas in 1831.

A general plea of prescription was filed by the curator in the District Court, which has been made more specific in this court — the prescription of ten and twenty years, under Article 3508 of the Civil Code, being relied on.

The plea must prevail. Foreign judgments are evidences of debt, of high authenticity, but they have no executory force in this State until they acquire it by the judgment and fiat of our own tribunals. To procure such afiat a personal action must be brought upon the judgment — an action the prescription of which is governed by the Article 3508 of the Code. Succession of Tilghman, 7 Rob. 392 ; Surget v. Stanton, 10 An. 318; Shackleford v. Robinson, 583.

It matters not that the judgment here sued upon was not prescribed by the law of France prevailing in Guadaloupe, as contended by the appellants; for the prescription of actions is regulated by the law of the forum only. More than twenty years had elapsed since Lucas became a resident of Louisiana, before any proceeding was instituted here upon the judgment in question.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1921: 11942: 11943: 11993: 12002: 119212026peak 1921 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State ex rel. Macheca v. Dunn87 So. 236 (La. 1921)
  2. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Haack50 F. Supp. 55 (W.D. La. 1943)
  3. State v. Alden Mills8 So. 2d 98 (La. Ct. App. 1942)
  4. Bank of Sunset & Trust Co. v. Charlot614 So. 2d 1386 (La. Ct. App. 1993)
  5. Canizaro Trigiani Architects v. Crowe815 So. 2d 386 (La. Ct. App. 2002)

Most recent

  1. Canizaro Trigiani Architects v. Crowe815 So. 2d 386 (La. Ct. App. 2002)
  2. Bank of Sunset & Trust Co. v. Charlot614 So. 2d 1386 (La. Ct. App. 1993)
  3. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Haack50 F. Supp. 55 (W.D. La. 1943)
  4. State v. Alden Mills8 So. 2d 98 (La. Ct. App. 1942)
  5. State ex rel. Macheca v. Dunn87 So. 236 (La. 1921)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Tinson v. Welch, 7 Rob. 392 (1868) 0

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list