Fleitas v. Richardson, 147 U.S. 550 (1893), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that under the Louisiana Code, the liability of the husband to the wife for her separate property received by him under the marriage contract is in the nature of a debt secured by mortgage of his lands, and may be enforced by her by direct suit against him. It may also be extinguished by his discharge in bankruptcy. Background The plaintiff, Mary C. W. Fleitas, was married to Francis B. Fleitas on February 6, 1868, in St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana. Before the marriage, the couple and her parents signed a marriage contract which provided that her parents' gift of $20,000 would be secured by a mortgage by Francis Fleitas in favor of his wife, as provided by Louisiana law. This law determined that her parents' contribution was a dotal (or dowry contribution). On April 25, 1877, Francis B. Fleitas obtained a discharge in bankruptcy in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. In 1884, Francis Fleitas purchased land, with a mortgage held by Gilbert M. Richardson, a citizen of New York, Albert R. Shattuck and Francis B. Hoffman, citizens of Massachusetts, the Defendants in this case. On September 3, 1887, the Mrs. Fleitas filed a petition in the state court in St. Bernard Parish against her husband for separation of property, and for a recognition of her mortgage on all his lands in that parish, alleging that he was largely in debt and that there was danger that his estate would not be sufficient to satisfy her rights and claims. On September 10, 1887, she recovered judgment against Fleitas decreeing a separation of property between them and ordering that the sum of $20,000, held by him as her paraphernal property, be returned to her and be recognized as secured by legal mortgage on all his lands in that parish. The sheriff executed the order, whereupon, on June 29, 1888, Richardson instituted executory proceedings upon the mortgage of January 28, 1884, for the seizure and sale of the lands, as set forth in the next preceding case, the record of which was made part of the record in this case. The case was duly removed by said defendants into the circuit court of the United States upon the grounds that there was a separable controversy between them and