Merchants' Bank of N. York vs. Exchange Bank of N. Orleans, 457

Palfrey, Syndic, &c., and Saunders ads. Peuch Bein, & Co.----- 97

Peuch, Bein & Co. vs. Palfrey, Syndic, &c., and Saunders, ----- 97

Vaught et al.: Dougherty & Co., Intervenors ads. Heath & Co., 515

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE FIFTH DISTRICT, FOR THE PARISH OF
ST. LANDRY, JUDGE BOYCE OF THE SIXTH DISTRICT PRESIDING.

The paraphernal property of married women is not bound for the debts
contracted by the husband while at the head of the community: neither
are the fruits liable, when the wife administers her own property.
A sale by the husband to the wife, when made for replacing her dotal and
paraphernal property or effects, is valid in law, particularly when no
fraud and collusion is alleged.

A sale from husband to the wife, for replacing her dotal and paraphernal
effects, should not be attacked, unless on the ground of fraud and
collusion.

This is an injunction to stay a seizure under execution. The sheriff seized under execution, which issued on a

* Judge GARLAND did not sit in the first sixteen cases in the Western District, at Opelousas. He was sworn in and took his seat on the 23d September, 1840. On that day, Judge SIMON withdrew for the remainder of the term at Opelousas, having been counsel in all the other causes which were tried. Judge BULLARD did not get to Opelousas this term, being detained in travelling; but went on to Alexandria, and met the court there. VOL. XVI.

1

WESTERN DIST.

September, 1840.

LAMBERT
US.

FRANCHEBOIS

ET AL.

WESTERN DIST. judgment obtained by David Simmons against Pierre Joubert, September, 1840. husband of the plaintiff, and one J. N. Franchebois, his

LAMBERT

vs. FRANCHEBOIS

ET AL.

surety, seven bales of cotton and a horse, which the plaintiff alleges is her separate, paraphernal property, and was pointed out to the sheriff by Franchebois, who was one of the defendants in the execution.

The plaintiff alleges that the property seized is paraphernal, of which she had the administration, and is not liable for her husband's debts. She prays that the sale be enjoined, and that she have judgment for damages against Franchebois, for his malicious conduct in this case.

The defendant pleaded the general issue, and prayed that the injunction be dissolved, with damages.

The evidence fully showed that the property seized, especially the cotton, was raised by the plaintiff's own slaves on her land; and that she had, by notarial act between her and her husband, resumed the administration of her own separate property, which she had inherited from her parents.

There was judgment perpetuating the injunction, and decreeing the property under seizure to belong to the plaintiff. The defendant appealed.

T. H. and W. B. Lewis, for the plaintiff, contended, that the judgment should be confirmed. The facts of the case show that the plaintiff ought to recover. She shows in support of her claim an act passed between herself and husband, the 23d July, 1838, by which the property brought by her into marriage is set off to her; and other property sold and delivered to her by her husband, in payment of the portion of her inheritance, which he had received in cash. She had the control and sole administration of all her own property.

2. She exhibits papers from the probate office, to show what her paraphernal property was, and also the testimony of witnesses. Upon this evidence we will raise but one question of law, which is, that the act from Joubert, the plaintiff's husband, settles and fixes her rights, and gives a good and valid title to the land, slaves and other property claimed by her, so far as it was not her's by inheritance. Louisiana Code 2420 and 2421.