
    No. 3812.
    
    Succession of Wm. C. James — Opposition of McFeely to the Tableaux of Debts.
    Jn this case tlio wife became tho executrix oí her deceased husband’s estate, and placed herself on the tableaux, filed by her, as a creditor for the amount of her judgment against her husband. This item on the tableaux was opposed by the creditors on the ground that the judgment was void because it had not been executed.
    Held — That it being shown by the record that tho judgment of the wife against her husband liad never been executed, and that no proper effort to execute it had ever been made; that therefore it was absolutely void, and not properly placed upon the tableaux as a debt against the succession.
    In the same tableaux the executrix refused to place a judgment against her husband upon the tableaux as a creditor, on tho ground that it involved a slave consideration. Tlie record of the caso in which the judgment was rendorod being introduced showed that the plea of a slave consideration had been made, hut the proof offered failed to establish it. Held — That the judgment was 2n'02)erly ordered by tho judge a quo to ho jilaced upon the tableaux as a debt against the succession.
    
      & PPEAL from tlie Parish Court, of Rapides. Daigre, J.
    
      Eyan & 1A. White, for plaintiff and appellant. 11. A. llvnicr, tor opponent and appellee.
   Taliaferro, J.

The widow and executrix filed a tableaux of debts •of the succession, placing upon it her judgment against her husband for $7600, with legal mortgage from the twenty-third of October, 1865. This judgment was opposed on the ground that after obtaining the judgment no ulterior means of any kind were used to enforce it, and ■that it became a nullity.

The executrix refused to recognize McFeely’s judgment as a debt .«gainst the estate on the ground that it arose from a slave obligation ■■and to the refusal of the judge to hear evidence to that effect, the executrix reserved a bill of exceptions. The judgment of the parish •court ordered McFeely’s judgment to be homologated as a valid debt •against the succession, and rejected the judgment of the executrix as null and without effect. The record of the suit of McFeely v. James, ■the one in which McFeely obtained against James the judgment which the executrix refused to acknowledge, appears in the record. Evidence in that case was introduced to prove that the note was given for the .price of a slave, but it failed to establish the fact.

There was proof in regard to the wife’s judgment that it was rendered in 1865, and that no execution had ever issued upon it nor any .means used to enforce it. The succession is shown to be utterly insolvent. We see no reason for remanding the case, as we think the judgment was properly rendered.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment appealed from be affirmed, the costs of appeal to be borne by the succession. \  