Munroe v. Frosh
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Appeal from the Fourth District Court of New Orleans, Strawbridge, J. contended that the defendants being bound in solido as commercial -partners, the residence of one partner within this State cannot prevent an attachment from being sued out against the non-resident partner. Smith v. Elliott, 3 Mart. 370. Cucullu v. Mangenal, 4 Mart. N. S. 185.
1Opinion of the Court
The judgment of the court was pronounced by
Slidell, J.
This suit is brought upon promissory notes made by the firm of Frosh Sf Muller, to the order of plaintiff. A small item of $23 is also claimed for merchandize sold here, by plaintiff, to Frosh Muller. An attachment issued, and was levied upon certain property which was bonded by the firm. There was a rule afterwards taken to set aside the attachment, which rule was sustained; and from the order of dissolution the plaintiff has appealed.
If it were established by the evidence -that the property attached belonged to Muller, this case would be…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Weil Bros. & Bauer v. Adams & SonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1910
- Donohoe Oil & Gas Co. v. MacK-jourden Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1932