Brinegar v. Griffin
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Appeal from the District Court of Iberville, Burk, I. The mere fact of the defendant’s being a non-resident, made his property liable to attachment. Code Pract.. art 240, no. 2. The law attaches no condition to the capacity of the attaching creditor, except that he be a creditor, and that his claim be established as provided by the arts. 242 and 243 of the Code of Practice. The court can make no distinction, where the law makes none.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of Iberville, Burk, I. The mere fact of the defendant’s being a non-resident, made his property liable to attachment. Code Pract.. art 240, no. 2. The law attaches no condition to the capacity of the attaching creditor, except that he be a creditor, and that his claim be established as provided by the arts. 242 and 243 of the Code of Practice. The court can make no distinction, where the law makes none. The law contemplates that the creditor may himself be a non-resident, and provides how the claim should be sworn to. Code Pract. art. 244. 10 La. 447. The case…
1Opinion of the Court
The judgment of the court was pronounced by
Slidell, J.
This case comes before us on an appeal from a decree dissolving an attachment, and dismissing the suit. One of the grounds for dissolution is that, the suit is for the liquidation and settlement of a partnership, and that in such a case the plaintiff cannot have the auxiliary remedy of attachment, because the ■affidavit indispensable to the granting of this writ cannot pi'operly be made by a ■party, who, from the nature of the case, must be ignorant of the precise amount ■due to him.
For a proper consideration of this subject it is…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Levy v. LevySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1838
3Cited by3 opinions
- Lehman v. BerdinU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Arkansas · 1878
- E. Sondheimer Co. v. Richland Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1908
- Voinche v. Lecompte Trade SchoolSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1951