Opinion

Snell v. Amite Oil Co.

  • 178 La. 176
  • 151 So. 70
  • 1933 La. LEXIS 1831
Court
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Filed
Oct 30, 1933
Status
Published
Author
Overton
On the bench
Overton
Cited by
9 cases
Authority
More cited than 87.0%

The opinion

OVERTON, Justice.

This is a, suit to foreclose a mortgage by executory process, alleged to have been executed by defendant, through its president, by virtue of a resolution of its board of directors. An order of seizure and sale was granted plaintiff. Defendant has appealed suspensively from this order. Its complaint is that it does not appear in the manner prescribed by law that its president was authorized to grant the mortgage.

To pnable the president of a corporation to bind it he must be authorized to do so. Such authority is generally granted by a resolution of the corporation’s board of directors. The law expressly provides the degree of proof necessary to establish the granting of the requisite authority for the purpose of obtaining executory process. It provides that: “In all applications for executory process against property mortgaged by a corporation, a copy of the resolution of the Board of Directors authorizing the execution of the mortgage on behalf of the corporation, taken from the copy certified by the secretary and attached to the original act of mortgage, and certified by the notary before whom the Act was passed, or from the mortgage or conveyance records, when the records show that the copy filed for record was certified by the secretary, and certified by the recorder, shall be sufficient evidence of the authority of the officer or agent to execute same. * * * ” Act No. 148 of 1910, p. 226.

There is in this case no resolution, certified to by the secretary of the corporation and by the notary, or by the recorder, as provided by the act — in fact no resolution of the board of directors was attached to the petition for executory process, or otherwise appears in the record, although it is alleged that one was attached.

In these circumstances nothing remains to be done but to set aside the order of executory process. Bank of Leesville v. Wingate, 123 La. 386 , 48 So. 1005 .

For these reasons, the order of executory process is set aside, and the application therefor is dismissed at plaintiff’s costs.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.