
    Soubiran v. Rivollet.
    Where it is shown that the succession of a deceased husband would not have defrayed the ex» penses of its administration; and that he died, in a state of absolute destitution;liis surviving wife cannot be made responsible for any portion of his debts, under art. 2387 O. C., oh proof that she took possession of certain old trunks and their contents, which the evidence renders it highly probable contained nothing but papers and old clothes, which she offered, to return. Per Curicmx If the succession could not have defrayed tlie expertise of its dd-Ministration; she was not bound to have it administered.
    
      
      from the Second District Court of New Orleans, Canon, X
    
      t)uvigneaud, for the appellant,
    cited C. C. 1074, 2381, Bui. & Cur. Dig. *810. Chabot, des Successions, vol. 2 p. 108. Diet, du Droit Civil, vol. 6, p. 56; 'arts. 28, 29, 35, 38. Ibid. vol. 2, p. 225, arts. 563 to 573.
    
      Biron, on the same ■side.
    
      Latour, for the deféndant.
   The judgment of the c'oifrt (King, X absent,-) was pronounced by

Rost, X

The plaintiff, who is a creditor of the late Jean Marie Rivollet, seeks to make his widow responsible for the debt, under art. 2387 C. C. The answer contains a general denial; and averment that the defendant has neither 'concealed nor made away with any of the effects of the community; but that; after the death of her husband, as a conservatory measure, and in the presence bf witnesses, she took possession of two old trunks and their contents, which she is ready to deliver to any person authorized to receive the same. The District 'court non-suited the plaintiff, and he has appealed.

The allegations that the defendant has 'corícealed ’or ihade aVay with the effects bf the succession; are entirely unsupported by evidence. ít is p'roved, on the other hand, that Bivollet lived separate from his wife, and was, at the time of his death, in a state of absolute destitution. His brother had to pay his funeral expenses, and the person, in whose house he lived, has against him a claim for rent and attendance, which she considers as lost. This testimony makes it highly probable that the two trunks, of which thé deféndant took charge, contained nothing but thé papers and old clothes which shé offers to return. If, as we believe, the succession would not have defrayed the expenses of administration, the defendant waá not bound to have it administered.

■Judgment affirmed'.  