Kyle v. Sigur
| Decision Date | 22 June 1908 |
| Docket Number | 16,886 |
| Citation | 46 So. 910,121 La. 888 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | KYLE v. SIGUR In re KYLE |
Rehearing Denied June 29, 1908.
Certiorari to Court of Appeal, Parish of St. Mary.
Action by William Kyle against Placide P. Sigur. Judgment for plaintiff was reversed by the Court of Appeal, and plaintiff applies for certiorari or writ of review. Judgment of Court of Appeal set aside, and that of district court affirmed.
Henry Mayer, for applicant.
Placide P. Sigur and O'Niell & Alpha, for respondent.
The defendant in this case pledged his law books as security for a loan. This suit is brought on the debt, and the prayer is that the pledge be recognized, and the property pledged be seized and sold to satisfy the debt. The defense is only as to the latter prayer, and is that the property is exempt from seizure, and therefore cannot be ordered to be seized. Defendant refers to article 644 of the Code of Practice, and to Act No. 17, p. 53, of 1874, and Act No. 79 p. 123, of 1876, amendatory thereof, and contends that by these laws, not only the property in question is exempt from seizure, but a public policy is announced according to which the owner of such exempted property is precluded from in any way renouncing or waiving the exemption. The provision relied on as having established the said public policy reads as follows:
"That any person offending against the provisions of this act [that is, any sheriff or constable seizing the exempted articles], or who shall by any artifice or subterfuge induce or procure another to sign away by contract or otherwise, any of the rights they may have under this act, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction shall be fined," etc.
To say that the things exempted from seizure by this law cannot be seized when they have been pledged is to say that they cannot be pledged; for a pledge which could not be made effective by foreclosure would be no pledge. Now, we do not think this law was ever intended to deprive the owner of these exempted things of his right to pledge them. The right to pledge property is one of the valuable attributes of its ownership. No one would think of saying that the owner of these exempted things could not sell them. If so, he ought to be allowed to pledge them, since pledge is nothing more than a qualified alienation of the thing. The effect is not so much to impose an additional obligation upon ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
W. T. Grant Co. v. Mitchell
... ... Prevost, 13 La. 230 (1839). See also Kay v. Furlow, 178 La. 635, 152 So. 315 (1934); Kyle v. Sigur, 121 La. 888, 46 So. 910 (1908); Ross v. Rosenthal, 1 Orleans App. 203 (1904). In essence, the conclusion has been that exemptions from ... ...
-
Aetna Finance Co. v. Antoine
...from the authorities cited, is a valid waiver. The waiver, as we have seen, does not violate public policy.' See also: Kyle v. Sigur, 121 La. 888, 46 So. 910 (1908). In our case, the property seized included certain household items exempt under the terms of LSA-R.S. 13:3881; they are not it......
- Travis v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co
-
Kay v. Furlow
...of such an instrument constitutes a waiver of the exemption as to the debt secured." 11 Ruling Case Law, § 61, p. 544. In Kyle v. Sigur, 121 La. 888, 46 So. 910, a case presented in which the defendant pledged his law books. When sued on the pledge he raised the issue that the property coul......