Pitot v. Elmes
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Philip Joubert, being in failing circumstances, the defendants, who had a claim against him, observing he was wasting his goods, made application to a judge, and obtained an order, in virtue of which his property was sequestered-In the mean while, he presented a petition for a meeting of his creditors, and obtained a stay of proceedings against him.
Read the full summary
Philip Joubert, being in failing circumstances, the defendants, who had a claim against him, observing he was wasting his goods, made application to a judge, and obtained an order, in virtue of which his property was sequestered-In the mean while, he presented a petition for a meeting of his creditors, and obtained a stay of proceedings against him. At the meeting, the plaintiffs were appointed his syndics, and they moved the court that the sequestered property might be placed in their hands for the benefit of the mass of his creditors. The defendants contended that they had by their…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Lewis, J. alone.
The only case of sequestration known to the civil law, is when two persons, or more, lay claim to the same property. In this case, the judge orders that, pendente lite, the property in dispute shall remain in the hands of sequestrators.
According to the laws of Spain, when a creditor proves his demand, and shows, to the satisfaction of the judge, that the debtor is wasting his goods, so that there is danger that, without some summary relief, the property, of the debtor will be destroyed or removed out of the reach of the creditor, before, in the ordinary course of *80b…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Succession of DrysdaleSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1911
- Bank of Alabama v. HozeySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1842