Orr v. Lisso
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL from the Tenth Judicial District Court, parish of Red River, Logan, J. First — That a judgment is improperly signed after a debtor has made a cession of his goods. 14 An. 443. Second — That the rights of all creditors should remain in the state they were at the date of the insolvency. Third — That thereafter the suit should be cumulated with the proceedings in concurso.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Tenth Judicial District Court, parish of Red River, Logan, J. First — That a judgment is improperly signed after a debtor has made a cession of his goods. 14 An. 443. Second — That the rights of all creditors should remain in the state they were at the date of the insolvency. Third — That thereafter the suit should be cumulated with the proceedings in concurso. Fourth — That when a debtor cedes his property to his creditors, and a stay of proceedings is granted, the cession operates the civil death of the debtor, and he cannot, consequently, remain a party in a suit. 1 M. 193,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Bermudez, C. J.
The plaintiffs, representing themselves as citizens of Missouri, claim from the defendants the amount of their note, dated at St. Louis on October 26th, 1878, and payable in New Orleans.
The suit was instituted on May 20th, 1879. A default was entered on November 6th following, and appears to have been confirmed on May 8th, 1880. The judgment was not regularly entered and has remained unsigned.
*477On the 13th following, the defendants entered an appéarance for the sole purpose of averring that they, individually and as partners, had made a…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Ogden v. SaundersSupreme Court of the United States · 1827
- Bank of Columbia v. OkelySupreme Court of the United States · 1819
- Bronson v. KinzieSupreme Court of the United States · 1843
- Baldwin v. HaleSupreme Court of the United States · 1864
- McCracken v. HaywardSupreme Court of the United States · 1844
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Tua v. CarriereSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- In re Weedman Stave Co.District Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1912
- Potts v. Smith Manufacturing Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Baton Rouge Rice Mill, Inc. v. Fairbanks, Morse & Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1927
- In re Macon Sash, Door & Lumber Co.District Court, S.D. Georgia · 1901
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.