Judson v. Hertz
Opinion of the Court
On the 17th of December, 1849, Ester Peixotto obtained a judgment against her husband Louis Hertz for a separation of property and a dissolution of the community of acquets or gains which existed between them, and also for the sum of $2000, as her paraphernal funds. A slave and lot of ground were seized and sold on the 2d of February, 1850, under a writ of fieri facias issued on her judgment, the nett proceeds of which were credited on the writ, leaying a balance in her favor of $1821 30. The writ was not returned
The validity of the mortgage thus given, and which is sought to he enforced by the plaintiffs, is attacked by the under tutor, intervenor in the prosecution, on two grounds: 1st, “That he was not called to the family meeting, who con* sented to the mortgage in favor of Judson & Go. against the minors Hertz; and, 2d, that the debt for which the mortgage was granted was not a debt of the wife, but a debt for Hertz himself.”
We consider both grounds untenable. The following acknowledgment signed by the under tutor, witnesses and notary, is written at the foot of the act of family meeting, viz: “ And Samuel Nathan the under tutor of said minor children having waived due notice to attend, and having taken full cognizance of the foregoing proceedings, declared that he approved of the same in every respect. In faith whereof he hereunto signs his name with the said'notary and above named witnesses.” We do not think it can be reasonably inferred from this that the under tutor was absent from the meeting. The law makes it the duty of the under tutor to oppose the homologation of the family meeting when he is of opinion that it is injurious to the interest of the minors. Its requirements to attain that object were, in our opinion, substantially complied with in the present case. The cases on which the appellant relies do not appear to us to he analogous in point of fact to the present. In Commaux v. Burbin, 6 N. S. 455, it appeared that the under tutor was not present at the meeting; and it was likewise the case in Stafford v. Villain, 10 L. 328. In neither of those cases it did not appear that the under tutor had taken any part in the proceedings of the 'family meeting.
On the other point, the evidence satisfies us, as it did the Judge a quo, that the money was received by the wife and used upon her property, and consequently enured to her benefit.
It is, therefore, ordered that the judgment of the court below be affirmed, with costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.