Fluker v. Bullard
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Appeal from the District Courtf of East Feliciana, Johnson, J. Choses in action may be sold under a ft. fa., and noseizure is necessary.- 4 Mart. N". S, 416. 5 La. 486. The seizure conferred a privilege. C. P. art. 722. cited Wilson v. Munday, 5 La. 484.
1Opinion of the Court
The judgment of the court was pronounced by
King, J.
The plaintiff alleges that he is the owner of a promissory note.whichhe acquired by purchase from Bailey, who acquired it at a sheriff’s sale as the property of Robert Dyer, by whom it was owned at the date of the seizure. He further avers that J. P. Bullard has obtained possession of the-note in question, and-prays that the latter be decreed to surrender it to him, or to pay its amount. Bullard, in his answer, disclaimed the ownership of the note,, and alleged that he held-it for Nettles.. Nettles intervened in the suit, ahd alleged that,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- De Comeau v. PeopleThe Superior Court of New York City · 1868
3Cited by6 opinions
- New Orleans v. StempelSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Hoxie v. BryantCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- American Bank & Trust Company v. StraughanLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1971
- Cameron State Bank v. DemarestLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1987
- Buck v. BeachSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.