Fox v. Tio
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL from the District Court of the First District, Buchanan, J. The judgment on the rule was a final one. Code of Pract. art. 539. It should have been signed. Code of Pract. arts. 546, 565. Cooley v. Seymour, 9 La. 275. Its execution was consequently illegal. Code of Pract. art. 624. The judgment on the rule did not require the signature of the judge.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the District Court of the First District, Buchanan, J. The judgment on the rule was a final one. Code of Pract. art. 539. It should have been signed. Code of Pract. arts. 546, 565. Cooley v. Seymour, 9 La. 275. Its execution was consequently illegal. Code of Pract. art. 624. The judgment on the rule did not require the signature of the judge. Van Winchle v. Flecheaux, 12 La. 148. Krceutler v. Bank of United States, 11 Rob. 160. It was not a final judgment, but a decision on a question arising in the execution of the final judgment.
1Opinion of the Court
The judgment of the court was pronounced by
Slidell, J.
Macarty had obtained an order of seizure and sale against Isabella Fox, and the property seized was adjudicated at twelve months’ credit to her. She neglected to furnish bond and security, and, after the twelve months had expired, Macarty took a rule upon her, to show cause why the *335property should not be sold for cash and without appraisement, suggesting as the grounds of the motion, the adjudication and her neglect to furnish bond. To this summary form of proceeding by rule she made no exception; but filed an answer to the rule, not…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Pumphrey v. DelahoussayeSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1844
3Cited by2 opinions
- Parker v. Harris County Drainage Dist. No. 2Court of Appeals of Texas · 1912
- State v. GaineySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1914