Taylor v. Whittemore
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Appeal from the Commercial Court of New Orleans, Watts, J. The testimony proves that there was no sale. The law relative to sales subject to a right of redemption, does not apply to moveable property. See Civ. Code, 3125. Williams et al. v. Schooner St. Stephens, 1 Mart.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Commercial Court of New Orleans, Watts, J. The testimony proves that there was no sale. The law relative to sales subject to a right of redemption, does not apply to moveable property. See Civ. Code, 3125. Williams et al. v. Schooner St. Stephens, 1 Mart. N. S. 417. Canizo’s Syndics v. Cuadra, 2 La. 459. Shaw's Syndic v. Newton et al., 3 La. 528. The plaintiffs’ right to seize is not •affected by evidence showing that the advances made by Charles were applied to the use of the creditors. .
1Opinion of the CourtBullard, J.
The plaintiffs having .recovered, a judgment against Whittemore and others, took out process of garnishment, according to the act of 1839, against various persons, and among others, Charles, the 'appellant in this case, to whom they propounded interrogatories touching any property which he might have received, or taken into possession belonging to the defendants ; and interrogated him whether he had purchased any property from them, with an understanding that on the re-payment of^the purchase money it should be restored, and whether he had in his possession or under his control any property…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Samory v. HebrardSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1841
- Laville v. HébrardSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1842
- Canizo's Syndics v. CuadraSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1831
- Shaw's Syndic v. NewtonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1832
3Cited by1 opinion
- Oldden v. M'ChesneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1819