Ferguson v. Chastant
Supreme Court of Louisiana
A PPEAL from the Second District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Tissot, J. An attachment is improperly dissolved where the defendant fails to prove that ho never made any attempt to sell the property, where the grounds of th§ attachment are that he was about to convert his property into evidences of debt, to place it beyond the reach of his creditors.
Read the full summary
A PPEAL from the Second District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Tissot, J. An attachment is improperly dissolved where the defendant fails to prove that ho never made any attempt to sell the property, where the grounds of th§ attachment are that he was about to convert his property into evidences of debt, to place it beyond the reach of his creditors. “Wetherow vs. Croslin, 24 An. 128; 55 An. 200; 27 An. 617, 104 ; 15 An. 425. To dissolve an attachment it is necessary to specially deny the grounds set up, and the bur-' den of proof is on him to disprove the allegation. Miller vs. Chandler,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Manning, J.
The plaintiff brought suit on March 20, 1880, to recover a moneyed judgment of the defendant. By supplemental petition of April 16 following, he prayed and obtained an attachment on the allegation that the plaintiff “has mortgaged and is about to dispose of his property with intent to defraud his creditors and especially petitioner, and to convert the same into money and evidences of debt with intent to place the same beyond the reach of his creditors.”
Upon a rule taken by the defendant to dissolve upon sundry grounds, one of which was that…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Swift v. BonvillainSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1916
- Douglas Public Service Corporation v. LeonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1941
- Groner v. Capitol Syrup Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1942
- Matthews v. ByfordLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1970
- Commercial Credit Corp. v. NavarreLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1961