Comstock v. Paie
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT. This is an action against the defendant, and one Smith, for seven hundred and twenty-eight dollars, the price of one hundred and four barrels of flour, which the plaintiffs allege they sold and delivered to said defendant. They pray for judgment, and that the flour be sequestered, and held subject to their demand. The defendant denied, generally and specially, every allegation and fact set forth in the petition.
Read the full summary
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT. This is an action against the defendant, and one Smith, for seven hundred and twenty-eight dollars, the price of one hundred and four barrels of flour, which the plaintiffs allege they sold and delivered to said defendant. They pray for judgment, and that the flour be sequestered, and held subject to their demand. The defendant denied, generally and specially, every allegation and fact set forth in the petition. The defendant’s counsel, on suggesting to the court that the plaintiffs had obtained possession of the flour from the sheriff,…
1Opinion of the CourtMartin, J.
The defendant, is appellant from the judgment of the Distiict Court, making a rule absolute, which made the sheriff responsible for taking an illegal and insufficient bond on an order of court, allowing the defendant, to bond the proceeds of a quantity of flour sequestered by the plaintiffs, and also in allowing the plaintiffs to bond the same.
The first part of the rule, which relates to the sheriff, cannot be considered by us, because the defendant and appellant is without interest therein ; and the sheriff is not before us, either as appellant or appellee.
It is objected, as to the second…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Goldstein v. HarrisSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1908
- State ex rel. City of New Orleans v. Judge of the Eighth District CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1870