TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Williams v. Hawthorn

J. R. Williamss. v. William Hawthorns.

Williams v. Hawthorn, 14 La. Ann. 615 (1859)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Louisiana · State Highest Courts
Decided
August 15, 1859
Judges
Vooriiies
Citations
14 La. Ann. 615
Headnotes
Creditors having individualljr tho right to instituto tho revocatory action, they may be joined as plaintiffs to the same suit, to have a fraudulent or simulated conveyance made by their common debtor annulled. In a revocatory action, all parsons charged with colluding for the purpose of defrau ling tho plaintill's, may be joined as defendants.
Summary
from the District Court of the Parish of Rapides, Cullom, 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 — Vooriiies

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

Vooriiies, J.

The motion to dismiss, in this case, has been unadvisedly filed ; it sets forth as a defect, that one of the appellants has not given his bond of appeal, whilst it appears that both of them executed separate bonds.

This action is brought by two creditors of Albert Hawthorn, for the purpose of annulling a sale made by their debtor to William Hawthorn, and a judgment *616 obtained by Martha, Hawthorn against her husband, Albert Hawthorn. The alleged grounds of nullity are fraud and simulation.

Albert Hawthorn, Ms wife Martha Hawthorn, and his brother William Hawthorn, who are made defendants in this matter, exce23ted to the plaintiffs action, on the following grounds, to wit :

1st. A misjoinder of plaintiffs.

2dly. A misjoinder of defendants ; and,

Sdly. An illegal cumulation of causes.

I. The claims of the plaintiffs against their common debtor, are distinct; but the cause of action, when they seek to avoid the effects of a fraudulent or simulated conveyance made by the common debtor to their detriment, is the same. If each and every creditor, irrespective of the origin of his claim, has the right to institute individually the revocatory action, there can be no impropriety in their joining for that purpose in the same action, in order to avoid a multiplicity of actions tending absolutely to the same result.

II. The second ground of objection, that there is no privity between the defendants, is met with the express allegation in the petition, that all the defendants are colluding for the purpose of defrauding the just creditors of one of these parties.

III. The plaintiffs ask the nullity of the sale to William Hawthorn, and of the judgment in favor of Martha Hawthorn, and go on to allege, that the wife has caused the undisposed of property of her husband, to be seized and sold, and that they are entitled to be paid by preference out of the proceeds in the hands of the Sheriff, because they have a judicial mortgage on all the property in question, and the defendant, Martha■ Hawthorn's claims, being fictitious and fraudulent. But the Sheriff is not made a party to these proceedings. The wife has a legal mortgage on the property of her husband; the property conveyed by Albert Hawthorn to William Hawthorn, is encumbered with a mortgage in favor of Martha Hawthorn, if her claim be not fictitious ; and the plaintiffs claim a judicial mortgage on all the property in controversy ; it is, therefore, their interest to have her judgment set aside, at the same time that the sale to William Hawthorn is cancelled, and, to that extent, the right of action against one of the defendants is closely related to the right of action against the other.

If the plaintiffs succeed in their cumulated demands, they can at once, without molestation, proceed to m||$5 their claim out of the whole property of the common debtor ; whilst their remedy would be more circuitous, if they had to proceed against each of the defendants separately. Besides, it is not conceived in what respect the latter may be injured by being called upon collectively to answer the plaintiffs’ demand; their respective rights are to be tested in the same manner, as if separate suits had been instituted.

It is, therefore, ordered and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be avoided and reversed ; that the exception filed by the defendants to the plaintiffs’ action be discharged ; and that this case be remanded for further proceedings ; the appellees paying the costs of appeal. *617 lants.

How later courts describe this case

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

1898: 11907: 118982026peak 1898 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Gill v. City of Lake Charles43 So. 897 (La. 1907)
  2. Marx v. Meyer Bros.23 So. 923 (La. 1898)

Most recent

  1. Gill v. City of Lake Charles43 So. 897 (La. 1907)
  2. Marx v. Meyer Bros.23 So. 923 (La. 1898)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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