Johnson v. Champagne
Johnson v. Champagne, 103 So. 2d 263 (La. 1958).
Cited by
- Wolf v. Whitney 424 So. 2d 300 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
- Terry v. Slidell Refrigerating & Heating, Inc. 271 So. 2d 536 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
- Pineda v. South Louisiana Publishing Co. 261 So. 2d 355 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
- Sas Jaworsky v. LeBlanc 239 So. 2d 176 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1970
- Polk Chevrolet, Inc. v. Vicaro 162 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
- Penn v. Burk 152 So. 2d 16 La. 1963
- Walker v. Delahoussaye 116 So. 2d 884 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
Opinion text
HAMITER, Justice (concurring). On the original hearing of this cause the sole argument advanced on behalf of the instant creditors was that they are entitled to preferential payment out of the funds derived from the sale of the property of Johnson’s Crescent City Tours because the adjudication was made to settle the community existing between Mr. and Mrs. Johnson and the claims asserted 'are wholly obligations of the community. There was no suggestion that the sale involved a settlement of a partnership operation. Nevertheless, inasmuch as it appears that the actions of Mr. and Mrs. Johnson (those following the judgment of separation) constituted at least the conducting of a joint business venture it does seem equitable and proper that the creditors whose services benefitted the undertaking are entitled to be paid by preference out of the proceeds of the sale of the assets of the business. This is particularly true since neither of the co-owners objects to the preferential payment.