Brode v. Firemen's Insurance
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Rule on the Judge of the Commercial Court of New Orleans to show cause why a mandamus should not be issued. The facts of ihiscase are sfa ed n the opinion delivered by. Morphy, J. This is a rule on the judge of the Commercial Court of New Orleans, to show cause why a mandamus should not issue, commanding him to allow the petitioner, Lucius Chit-tenden, a suspensive appeal from a judgment entered up against him as a garnishee in this case.
Read the full summary
Rule on the Judge of the Commercial Court of New Orleans to show cause why a mandamus should not be issued. The facts of ihiscase are sfa ed n the opinion delivered by. Morphy, J. This is a rule on the judge of the Commercial Court of New Orleans, to show cause why a mandamus should not issue, commanding him to allow the petitioner, Lucius Chit-tenden, a suspensive appeal from a judgment entered up against him as a garnishee in this case. The facts upon which the application is based, appear from the petition and the return of the judge, to be the following : Lucius Chittenden, being served…
1Opinion of the CourtMorphy, J.
The judge below was of opinion that, although
the garnishee had denied his indebtedness, and stated that his stock had become forfeited under'the third section of the charter of the Firemen’s Insurance Company, the plaintiff was entitled to an immediate judgment, without any rule or notice to him, because his answers confessed all the facts necessary to render him liable, and did not allege that any proceedings had been taken to create the forfeiture they speak of, or that a forfeiture had been in fact declared. Whether this bo so, and whether the judgment of the 18th of January, 1844, has…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Successions of KellerSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1887
- Clemens v. TestardLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1909
- Pan-American Bank & Trust Co. v. RansomSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1921