Dunbar v. Dinkgrave
Supreme Court of Louisiana
from the District Court of Ouachita, R. W. Richardson, J. Plaintiffs propounded interrogatories to several persons — -one of whom, John T. Ludeling, was asked whether at the time of the service thereof, or since, he had in his possession or under his control, individually or otherwise, “ a note executed by John T. Simmons, William A. Simmons, Francis Hassen and Elizabeth Gilbert, dated about the 17th December, 1853, for four thousand dollars, and due March 1st, 1854, drawing…
Read the full summary
from the District Court of Ouachita, R. W. Richardson, J. Plaintiffs propounded interrogatories to several persons — -one of whom, John T. Ludeling, was asked whether at the time of the service thereof, or since, he had in his possession or under his control, individually or otherwise, “ a note executed by John T. Simmons, William A. Simmons, Francis Hassen and Elizabeth Gilbert, dated about the 17th December, 1853, for four thousand dollars, and due March 1st, 1854, drawing eight per cent, per annum interest after due ? If so, state where said note is now, and to whom it was made payable,…
1Opinion of the Court
.‘Spoitokd, J.
There appears-to bemo error .in the judgment discharging the ¡garnishee J. T. Ludeling.
Hi-s ¡answers were not traversed, and they are neither evasive nor inconsistent.
Theiwte which, by the ordinance of the Police Jury, he, as the President, was .authorized to transfer to the District Attorney and the Sheriff in payment of their fees, did not belong to the Sheriff Birilcgrame until he had agreed to take it in payment. If the note itself had been seized at any time before it actually went into his hands, it could not under the evidence have been held as the property of Birilcgrame.
2Cited by4 opinions
- Fischer v. DubrocaSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1927
- Bank of Winnfield v. BrumfieldLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1929
- Citizens Discount & Investment Co. v. CanatellaLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1927
- Mosely v. OvertonLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1934