Vance v. Vance, Ex
Citation | 108 U.S. 514,2 S.Ct. 854,27 L.Ed. 808 |
Parties | VANCE and another v. VANCE, EX'X, etc |
Decision Date | 07 May 1883 |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
C. W. Hornor, for plaintiff in error.
E. M. Hudson, for defendant in error.
This is a writ of error to the supreme court of Louisiana. In a proceeding in the state court of Louisiana the plaintiff in error recovered a judgment against the defendant in error, as executrix of the succession of her husband, S. W. Vance, for the sum of about $75,000, due from him to plaintiff in error as her natural tutor. The sum thus found due was the result of an accounting concerning this tutorship during the period between October 15, 1859, and May 18, 1877. Article 354 of the Civil Code of Louisiana, in force when this tutorship began, says: 'The property of the tutor is tacitly mortgaged in favor of the minor, from the day of the appointment of the tutor, as security for his administration, and for the responsibility which results from it.' The court of probate, which adjusted this account, decreed in favor of the plaintiff in error that her mortgage privilege for the sums and interest found due her be recognized on all the lands owned by Samuel W. Vance, the deceased tutor, on and after the fifteenth day of October, 1859. From this branch of the decree certain creditors of the deceased tutor, who had been permitted to intervene, appealed to the supreme court of the state, and that court reversed the decree of the probate court by deciding against the existence of this mortgage privilege. The ground on which this privilege was denied is found in article 123 of the constitution of the state of Louisiana, adopted in April, 1868, which is as follows:
The legislature did pass the act of March 8, 1869, No. 95: 'To carry into effect article 123 of the constitution, and to provide for recording all mortgages and privileges.' Session Acts 1869, p. 114. Section 11 reads:
The case comes to this court on the proposition that, as thus construed, the constitution and statute of Louisiana impair the obligation of her contract with her tutor concerning his duty to account for her estate in his hands, and also violate the provision of section 1, art. 14, of the amendments to the constitution of the United States.
The view of the supreme court of Louisiana on this matter is very clearly presented in the following extract from its opinion in the case:
See Cooley, Const. Lim. 376; Story, Coust. p. 236, § 1385.
These observations seem to us eminently just. The strong current of modern legislation and judicial opinion is against the enforcement of secret liens on property. And, in regard to real property, every state in the Union has enacted statutes holding them void against subsequent creditors and purchasers, unless they have actual notice of their existence, or such constructive notice as arises from registration.
The constitution of Louisiana introduced this principle, and did it with due regard to existing contracts. It did not change, defeat, or impair the obligation of the tutor to perform that contract. It did not take away or destroy the security which existed by way of lien on the tutor's property, nor as between the tutor and the ward did it make any change whatever. But it said to the latter:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Oshkosh Waterworks Co. v. City of Oshkosh
...less than a year for registration of existing ones. Held valid for the reason that it left an adequate remedy. Vance v. Vance, 108 U. S. 514, 518, 2 Sup. Ct. 854, 27 L. Ed. 808. Law authorizing service of process on mayor or clerk may be changed to require service on the mayor without impai......
-
United States v. Colorado & N.W.R. Co.
... ... McIver v ... Ragan, 2 Wheat. 25, 29, 4 L.Ed. 175; Bank v. Dalton, ... 9 How. 522, 528, 13 L.Ed. 242; Vance v. Vance, ... 108 U.S. 514, 521, 2 Sup.Ct. 854, 27 L.Ed. 808; Railway ... Co. v. B'Shears, 59 Ark. 237, 244, 27 S.W. 2. By so ... much the more ... ...
-
Chauncey v. Dyke Bros.
... ... C.C.A. 569, 60 F. 208; McIver v. Ragan, 2 ... Wheat. 25, 29, 4 L.Ed. 175; Bank v. Dalton, 9 ... How. 522, 528, 13 L.Ed. 242; Vance v. Vance, ... 108 U.S. 514, 521, 27 L.Ed. 808. In Railway Co. v ... B'Shears, 59 Ark. 237, 244, 27 S.W. 2, the supreme ... court of Arkansas ... ...
-
Lamb v. Powder River Live Stock Co.
... ... 365; ... Edwards v. Kearzey, 96 U.S. 595, 603, 24 L.Ed. 793; ... Koshkonong v. Burton, 104 U.S. 668, 675, 26 L.Ed ... 886; Vance v. Vance, 108 U.S. 514, 2 Sup.Ct. 854, 27 ... L.Ed. 808; McGahey v. Virginia, 135 U.S. 662, 707, ... 10 Sup.Ct. 972, 34 L.Ed. 304; Wheeler v ... ...