
    (63 South. 601.)
    No. 19.617.
    PEOPLE’S BANK v. LEVERT. Intervention of LEVERT et ux.
    (Dec. 1, 1913.)
    
      (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
    
    1. Homestead (§ 194*) — Sale—Preferences.
    Upon foreclosure sale of plaintiff’s plantation, on which he and his family resided, plaintiff, if he desire a preference of $2,000 out of the proceeds of the land, as a homestead, may intervene by a third opposition instead of ordinary intervention and citation.
    [Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Homestead, Cent. Dig. § 365; Dec. Dig. § 194.*]
    2. Affeal and Error (§ 1036*) — Harmless Error.
    In an intervention by a husband so as to retain a preference out of the proceeds of the foreclosure sale of the family homestead, the joinder of the wife as a party intervener is harmless.
    [Ed. Noté. — Eor other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 4069-4074; Dec. Dig. § 1036.*]
    3. Homestead (§ 194*) — Foreclosure—Preference.
    A petition of third opposition by a husband for a homestead preference of $2,000 upon the foreclosure sale of his actual homestead need not deny that his wife has property to that amount.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Homestead, Cent. Dig. § 365; Dec. Dig. § 194.*]
    Appeal from Twenty-First Judicial District Court, Parish of Iberville; C. K. Schwing, Judge.
    Foreclosure by the People’s Bank against Amedee Levert. Intervention and third opposition of Mr. and Mrs. Amedee Levert for a preference out of the proceeds as a homestead. From a judgment for intervener, plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    J. H. Pugh, of Plaquemine, for appellant. Charles Louque, of New Orleans, for appellee.
   PROVOSTY, J.

The defendant’s plantation, upon which he and his family live, having been offered for sale under foreclosure proceedings, he intervened by third opposition and claimed $2,000 by preference out of the proceeds of the sale, as homestead.

Exception was filed to the form of the proceeding, which, it was claimed, should have been by ordinary intervention and citation.

The intervention was for preferred payment out of the proceeds of the prospective sale, and was therefore properly made summary.

Exception was also filed because the wife joined the husband in the suit. We fail entirely to see what harm this could do. It might do no good, but certainly can do no harm.

Another exception was no cause of action because' the petition of third opposition did not contain the allegation of the wife not having property to the amount of $2,000. In Garner v. Freeman, 118 La. 187, 42 South. 767, 118 Am. St. Rep. 361, this court held that such an allegation was unnecessary.

Judgment affirmed.  