Cited by

Ann. 1, p. 13 ; Seixas v. Citizens’ Bank, p. 432 , and others are to the effect that compensation does not take place, although the two debts are equally liquidated and de-mandable, unless there be request and consent to that effect.

therwise to collect the debt; that there was fraud in the vendor, knowledge in the vendee, and injury to the complaining creditor; and that the claim of *505 the bank existed prior to the act sought to be annulled,” and held that “these allegations contain all of the averments essential to a revocatory action and necessarily set forth a right and cause of action”; citing Seixas v. Citizens’ Bank, ; E. J. Hart & Co. v. Bowie, 34 La.

Seixas v. Citizens’ Bank, ; E. J. Hart & Co. v. Bowie, 34 La.

Seixas, Syndic, v. Citizens’ Bank, ; Leurey v. Bank of Baton Rouge, 131 La.

“These are three essentials to a successful revocatory action — ‘Fraud on the part of the vendor; knowledge on the part of the vendee, and actual injury to the other creditors.’ Seixas v. Citizens’ Bank of Louisiana, ; Chapoton v. Creditors, 45 La.

148 ; Seixas v. Citizens’ Bank, ; Hart & Co. v. Bowie, 34 La.

Seixas v. Citizens’ Bank, ; Leurey v. Bank of Baton Rouge, 131 La.

Leurey v. Bank of Baton Rouge, 131 La.

Seixas v. Citizens’ Bank, .

yor was a director in the defendant bank and possessed the actual and constructive knowledge imputed to him in the foregoing excerpt, his actual knowledge cannot be imputed to the defendant, since, in purchasing the stock, he was acting in his own interest and not in the interest of the bank, and the case in that respect falls within the doctrine announced in the case of Seixas v. Citizens’ Bank, , in which it was held, in effect, that the knowledge even of the president of a bank will not be im

Seixas v. Citizens’ Bank, .