State Ex Rel. Hurwitz v. Recorder of Mortgages
State Ex Rel. Hurwitz v. Recorder of Mortgages, 115 So. 582 (La. 1928).
Cited by
- Slaughter v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 33 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1947
- Booker v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana 6 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
- Robinson v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana 195 So. 351 La. 1940
- Robinson v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana 191 So. 145 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
- Ross v. Armour Fertilizer Works 168 So. 353 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
- Calcasieu Building & Loan Ass'n v. Goudeau 161 So. 599 La. 1935
- Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills v. Fernandez 159 So. 339 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
- Lotz v. Hurwitz 141 So. 83 La. 1932
- Knox v. Louisiana Long Leaf Lumber Co. 138 So. 139 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
- Zuviceh v. Schnyder 137 So. 379 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1931
- Hurwitz v. Lotz 133 So. 351 La. 1931
- Swift & Co. v. Villemeur 131 So. 855 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Savage v. Holmes 15 La. Ann. 334
- State ex rel. Deblieux v. Recorder of Mortgages 25 La. Ann. 61
- Lanaux v. Recorder of Mortgages 36 La. Ann. 974
- 150 La. 922 not in our corpus
- State ex rel. Braswell v. Hallam 91 So. 298
Opinion text
O’NIELL, C. J. This is a mandamus proceeding to compel the recorder of mortgages to cancel an inscription of an affidavit made by George A. Lotz, claiming a lien on the property of the relators, described in the affidavit. Lotz was made a party defendant in the suit. His affidavit sets forth that the relators, whose lot adjoins that of Lotz, have, without right or color of right, made use of the supporting wall on the lot of Lotz, by resting the joists and steel framework in and on the wall; that the wall is not on, but 4 inches inside of, the line dividing the two lots; that the wall is worth $9,850, and Lotz’s 4 inches of land on the Hurwitz side of the wall, plus the 9 inches on which one-half of the wall rests, is worth $2,166.66; and that he, Lotz, therefore has a lien on the relators’ lot to secure to him, Lotz, the payment of the total valuation of $12,016.66. Assuming, for sake of argument, that everything stated in the affidavit of Lotz is true, and that the relators are indebted to him in the amount stated, he has no lien on their property as security for the claim. The recorder of mortgages therefore had no right to record the affidavit as a lien or an incumbrance on the relators’ property. Mandamus is the right remedy in such a case. Savage v. Holmes, 15 La. Ann. 334 ; State ex rel. Deblieux v. Recorder of Mortgages et al., 25 La. Ann. 61 ; Lanaux v. Recorder of Mortgages et al., 36 La. Ann. 974 ; State ex rel. Braswell v. Hallam et al., 150 La. 922 , 91 So. 298 . The judgment appealed from, making the mandamus peremptory and ordering the recorder of mortgages to cancel the inscription complained of, is correct. The judgment is affirmed.