Allen, Nugent & Co. v. Champlin
Supreme Court of Louisiana
A PPEAL from the Thirteenth Judicial District Hough, J. Cóurt, parish of Tensas. First — That the facts justified the belief expressed'by plaintiffs in their affidavit for sequestration, and therefore malice cannot be inferred. •Second — That plaintiff in attachment cannot be held in damages for a seizure by the sheriff of property which the sheriff was not authorized by the writ to take. 'Third — Defendant in attachment is not entitled to damages, on the dissolution of the…
Read the full summary
A PPEAL from the Thirteenth Judicial District Hough, J. Cóurt, parish of Tensas. First — That the facts justified the belief expressed'by plaintiffs in their affidavit for sequestration, and therefore malice cannot be inferred. •Second — That plaintiff in attachment cannot be held in damages for a seizure by the sheriff of property which the sheriff was not authorized by the writ to take. 'Third — Defendant in attachment is not entitled to damages, on the dissolution of the attachment, when it appears by the judicial admission of defendant himself that the property attached belonged to…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Manning, C. J.
The plaintiffs sued the defendant on November 3, 1877, for the recovery of $1,962.55, value of supplies furnished him for the cultivation of the Holly Ridge plantation during that year, of which $303.35 were then due, and the residue would become due on 15th. of that month, and took out a sequestration. Five days afterwards they filed a supplemental petition and prayed an attachment, which was issued on a bond for $982.
The defendant moved to dissolve the attachment on three grounds, the last of which is the insufficiency in amount of the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Ralph's Fleet, Inc. v. American Marine Corp.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1963
- Dunn v. Southern Ins.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1906
- Bauman v. ClineLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1929