Marr v. Lartigue
Supreme Court of Louisiana
On the 25th of February, the plaintiff attached a debt due to the defendant, who, on the 28th of the same month, made a cessio bonorum, and obtained a stay of proceedings. On the 7th of March, the syndics of the defendant maved to have the attachment dissolved. This cannot be done. The attachment has created a lien, which the defendand cannot, by any act of his, dissolve or impair. His syndics cannot have acquired, by the cessio, more than the ceding debtor possessed.
Read the full summary
On the 25th of February, the plaintiff attached a debt due to the defendant, who, on the 28th of the same month, made a cessio bonorum, and obtained a stay of proceedings. On the 7th of March, the syndics of the defendant maved to have the attachment dissolved. This cannot be done. The attachment has created a lien, which the defendand cannot, by any act of his, dissolve or impair. His syndics cannot have acquired, by the cessio, more than the ceding debtor possessed. Our attachment is like the praetorium pignus of the civil law: quoda judicibus datur et praetorium nuncupatur. Cod. lib. 8,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Admitting that, as the counsel for the plaintiff contends the praetorium pignus gave to the plaintiff'a lien, which enabled him to repel the rest of the defendant's creditors; as this mode of relief, or the corresponding process, has originally come to us from the French or Spanish *99law, it follows, if our statute provides only a mode of relief, leaving the effect of the process to be ascertained by the existing laws, as neither prenda nor the saisie-arret, entitled the plaintiff to the strong lien which is now claimed, the court must say that the property attached must be…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Keyes v. ShannonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1844
- Hanna v. His CreditorsSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1822