creditor claim in Louisiana

1976Downs v. Morrison, 13 La.Ann. 379 (1858).

1959In the leading case of Friend v. Talcott, 228 U.S. 27 , 33 S.Ct. 505, 507 , 57 L.Ed. 718 , 30 Am.Bankr.Rep. 31, Chief Justice White of the United States Supreme Court pointed out that a claim may be provable in bankruptcy and yet constitute a nondischargeable obligation of the bankrupt; that the creditor in such a claim was entitled to the benefit of both provisions of the statute, that is, as to provable claims and also as to its nondischargeability.

1959In the leading case of Friend v. Talcott, 228 U.S. 27 , 33 S.Ct. 505, 507 , 57 L.Ed. 718 , 30 Am.Bankr.Rep. 31, Chief Justice White of the United States Supreme Court pointed out that a claim may be provable in bankruptcy and yet constitute a nondischargeable obligation of the bankrupt; that the creditor in such a claim was entitled to the benefit of both provisions of the statute, that is, as to provable claims and also as to its nondischargeability.

1959In the leading case of Friend v. Talcott, 228 U.S. 27 , 33 S.Ct. 505, 507 , 57 L.Ed. 718 , 30 Am.Bankr.Rep. 31, Chief Justice White of the United States Supreme Court pointed out that a claim may be provable in bankruptcy and yet constitute a nondischargeable obligation of the bankrupt; that the creditor in such a claim was entitled to the benefit of both provisions of the statute, that is, as to provable claims and also as to its nondischargeability.

1954Counsel for plaintiff then cites the well-settled law of our state that a judgment creditor acquires a privilege on the property seized which entitles him to a preference over other creditors by the mere act of his seizure of the property, citing Milliken & Farwell v. Taft Mercantile Co., 7 La.App. 150 , and therefore contends that to rule as did the District Court in this case would mean that a creditor who has a privilege must yield in priority to a creditor who has no privilege.

1933It was so held in Iberville Bank & Trust Co. v. Dupuy, 139 La. 28 , 71 So. 206 ; Martin v. Gary et ux., 132 La. 246 , 61 So. 218 .

1933It was so held in Iberville Bank & Trust Co. v. Dupuy, 139 La. 28 , 71 So. 206 ; Martin v. Gary et ux., 132 La. 246 , 61 So. 218 .

1933It was so held in Iberville Bank & Trust Co. v. Dupuy, 139 La. 28 , 71 So. 206 ; Martin v. Gary et ux., 132 La. 246 , 61 So. 218 .

1933It was so held in Iberville Bank & Trust Co. v. Dupuy, 139 La. 28 , 71 So. 206 ; Martin v. Gary et ux., 132 La. 246 , 61 So. 218 .

1932In Succession of Loeper, 105 La. 772 , 30 So. 131 , 133, the court, through its organ, Justice Nicholls, said: “There can be no doubt, under numerous decisions of this court, of the right of the holder of a note secured by special mortgage on certain property, with the clause de non alienando, to enforce the mortgage by executory process, notwithstanding the fact that the debtor had died, and his succession was under administration.” In Twomey v. Papalia, 142 La. 621 , 77 So. 479, 482 , this court said: “It is well settled that a creditor whose claim is secured by an authentic act of mortgage,

1932In Succession of Loeper, 105 La. 772 , 30 So. 131 , 133, the court, through its organ, Justice Nicholls, said: “There can be no doubt, under numerous decisions of this court, of the right of the holder of a note secured by special mortgage on certain property, with the clause de non alienando, to enforce the mortgage by executory process, notwithstanding the fact that the debtor had died, and his succession was under administration.” In Twomey v. Papalia, 142 La. 621 , 77 So. 479, 482 , this court said: “It is well settled that a creditor whose claim is secured by an authentic act of mortgage,

1932In Succession of Loeper, 105 La. 772 , 30 So. 131 , 133, the court, through its organ, Justice Nicholls, said: “There can be no doubt, under numerous decisions of this court, of the right of the holder of a note secured by special mortgage on certain property, with the clause de non alienando, to enforce the mortgage by executory process, notwithstanding the fact that the debtor had died, and his succession was under administration.” In Twomey v. Papalia, 142 La. 621 , 77 So. 479, 482 , this court said: “It is well settled that a creditor whose claim is secured by an authentic act of mortgage,

1914This decision was followed in Pandelly v. His Creditors, 1 La.

1914In the case of Ferguson & Hall et al. v. Their Creditors, 19 La. 278 , the court held that the syndic of an insolvent estate could not appeal from a judgment reducing or rejecting the claims of a particular creditor, or denying to a creditor a privilege on the assets, because, said Martin, J.: “To the mass of the creditors whose interests the syndic represents, it was beneficial.” In the same ease the syndic was allowed an appeal from a judgment taking a claim from the list of ordinary creditors, and recognizing it as privileged, because such judgment diminished the assets to be divided among

1884Mc Neill, 17 La. 185 ; Winchester vs.