Legal Opinion

E. Conery & Son v. Waggaman

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided July 1, 1881No. 40Published

Appeal from ¡Sixth District Court. Iiightor, Judge.

1Opinion of the CourtMcGloin, J.

This case presents features similar to those of Clavarie & Noble against same defendants, lately decided, in which we have determined to accord a rehearing. We decided in the opinion read in that case that the writ of sequestration, as known to our law, was not covered by the words *44“ mesne process,” as used in section 3579 of the Eevised Statutes of this State. We arrived at this conclusion after a careful study of the signification of the words “ mesne process” under the English law, and satisfied ourselves that the writ in question was not covered by that term as used in the common law of…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Morgan v. CampbellSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
  2. Security Mutual Casualty Co. v. Rainey (In Re Rainey)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · 1979
  3. In re BellowsU.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Hampshire · 1844
  4. Mixer, Whitman & Co. v. Excelsior Oil & Guano Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1871

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API