
    No. 7275.
    Rosanna O’Keefe vs. T. H. Handy, Sheriff, et al.
    If it be true that the examination of a married woman, made by the judge with the view of authorizing her to mortgage her property for borrowed money, precludes all inquiry as to matters antecedent to the examination, and creates against her the presumption juris et de jure of her right to borrow, and as to the fact that the borrowing is for the benefit of her separate estate — it is equally true that the admission of parol proof, shewing that the money never was «borrowed, is not an attack on the judgment authorizing the borrowing. An attempt to shew the non-execution of a judgment is not an attack on the judgment, for however severely the judgment of authorization precludes inquiry as to antecedent matters, it does not preclude inquiry as to those subsequent thereto.
    Where the controversy is between the original parties, it is unnecessary to say how far the married woman’s declarations in the notarial act would irrevocably bind her toward third persons who have acted on the faith of them.
    Appeal from the Sixth District Court of New Orleans. Rightor, J.
    
      S. Belden for Plaintiff Appellant. Schmidt and Seghers for Defendant.
   White, J.,

delivered the opinion, reversing the judgment and remanding the ease.  