Hann v. Ruse
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Lazarus, J. The writ of attachment, in case of non-residents, is not merely a conservatory writ, but is the basis and foundation of jurisdiction, which cannot be acquired except under the very letter of the law, allowing the process. 10 An. 324; 18 L. 367. Defendants have every presumption in their favor. 14 L. 503-j 11 An. 622,- 15 An. 709. The petition must’not be couched in general and sweeping terms, but…
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Lazarus, J. The writ of attachment, in case of non-residents, is not merely a conservatory writ, but is the basis and foundation of jurisdiction, which cannot be acquired except under the very letter of the law, allowing the process. 10 An. 324; 18 L. 367. Defendants have every presumption in their favor. 14 L. 503-j 11 An. 622,- 15 An. 709. The petition must’not be couched in general and sweeping terms, but must be drawn in terms so clear and precise as would subject the plaintiff to the charge of perjury, if the allegations…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Manning, J.
This appeal is from a judgment setting aside an attachment because of a defective bond, or as the Judge below expresses it, a bond utterly null and void. The 'cause of nullity is stated by him to be the failure to recite in it the name of the case, or under what title the writ issued, and the ruling is based on Percy vs. Millaudon, 6 La. 585; Dunlap vs. Price, 10 Ann. 155; Suc. of Walker, 32 Ann. 525.
Neither of these decisions have any bearing on the question. They relate to appeal bonds. The difference between appeal bonds and attachment…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Mitchell v. MurphySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1913