Merchants & Farmers Bank v. McKellar
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL from the First District Court, Parish of Caddo. Taylor, J, 1. Under Article 242 of the Code of Practice, it is not necessary for a creditor who takes an attachment on a debt not due, in addition to the grounds mentioned in Article 240, to swear that the debtor is about to remove his property out of the State before the debt becomes due.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the First District Court, Parish of Caddo. Taylor, J, 1. Under Article 242 of the Code of Practice, it is not necessary for a creditor who takes an attachment on a debt not due, in addition to the grounds mentioned in Article 240, to swear that the debtor is about to remove his property out of the State before the debt becomes due. Section 7 of the Act of 1826 has been fundamentally modified by the revision of the code, and the words “and moreover swears ” have been therein stricken out and the words “ or swears ” substituted, changing a conjunctive sentence into a disjunctive…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Breaux, J.
Plaintiff sued defendant to recover 'the sum of $11,328.69, of which $5000 was at the time due, and $6328.69 became due some time after the suit had been filed.
He also in the suit obtained an attachment and seized defendant’s property, alleging the grounds contained in paragraphs 4 and 5 of Art 240 of the Code of Practice.
Two days after the suit had been filed, and the attachment had issued, that portion of the debt actually due was paid by the defendant. The balance, $6328.69, was paid at maturity, about a month and a half after.
The…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Earnest v. EarnestSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1835
3Cited by2 opinions
- Miller v. MillerSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1926
- Groner v. Capitol Syrup Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1942