Lobdell v. Union Bank
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL from the District Court, Sixth District, Parish of East Baton Rouge. Robertson, J. The above statement of facts is taken from the opinion of the Court. The suit was commenced by petition. In the suit of the Union Banin v. Hereford and wife, in wdiich the seizure was made, no opposition wras made by the plaintiff. In this suit an Injunction was prayed for but not ordered. No counsel seems to have appeared for the plaintiff in the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the District Court, Sixth District, Parish of East Baton Rouge. Robertson, J. The above statement of facts is taken from the opinion of the Court. The suit was commenced by petition. In the suit of the Union Banin v. Hereford and wife, in wdiich the seizure was made, no opposition wras made by the plaintiff. In this suit an Injunction was prayed for but not ordered. No counsel seems to have appeared for the plaintiff in the Supreme Court. Had the Bank the right to seize slaves mortgaged to them by Gharries M. H Myott anterior to the year 1839, as they have done, is the only…
1Opinion of the Court
Rost, J.*
(Slidell, J., dissenting.) The plaintiff made opposition to the sale of two slaves, seized in his possession under an order of seizure and salo, at the suit of the Union Bank v. Hereford and wife, on the ground that they were his property, and that the Bank has no right thus to proceed against them, he claims from the Sheriff and the Bank the damages sustained by reason of the wrongful seizure.
The defendants excepted to the jurisdiction of the Court of the parish of East Baton Rouge, on the ground that, although the writ issued from that Court, it was directed to John L. Lewis, the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Turner v. SanchezNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1946
- Peters v. NorrisSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1938
- Tilly v. WoodhamLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1936
- Tregre v. Carter Packet Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1913