Chaffe v. Handy
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. . Laewms, J. Frank & Co. are not parties to the judgment and though they maybe beneficially interested in it. they cannot control the execution. 5 N, S. 707: 24 A. 549. Tlie judgment as rendered is indivisible and must be so executed.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. . Laewms, J. Frank & Co. are not parties to the judgment and though they maybe beneficially interested in it. they cannot control the execution. 5 N, S. 707: 24 A. 549. Tlie judgment as rendered is indivisible and must be so executed. Any beneficial interest ■which Frank & Co. may have therein, can only be settled dehors the judgment, through settlement by them with Chaffe The judgment establishes on its face an interest by Chaffe & Sons therein and there is no evidence of any severance of interest, even were such severance…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Todd, J.
The facts pertaining to this controversy are briefly these:
John Chaffe & Sons caused an attachment to issue against one Ernest Heyner and had a lot of cotton seized, under the writ, as Ms property.
Frank & Co. intervened in the suit and claimed to be owners of the cotton.
During the pendency of the suit, the cotton was sold by the sheriff, under an order of the Court, and the proceeds held hy this officer to abide the determination of the rights of the parties litigant with respect thereto.
*25Frank & Co., the intervenors, were decided to be the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Jones v. FrellsenSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1844
- Berghaus v. HarrisburgSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
3Cited by1 opinion
- Johnson v. Southern Pac. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1902