Lacaze & Reine v. Their Creditors
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL from the Twenty-first District Court, Parish of St. John the Baptist. Rost, J. ■ , 1. No affidavit is necessary for the arrest of afraudulent debtor under our insolvent laws; it is mere surplusage, and hence no defect in it can affect the validity of the proceedings.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Twenty-first District Court, Parish of St. John the Baptist. Rost, J. ■ , 1. No affidavit is necessary for the arrest of afraudulent debtor under our insolvent laws; it is mere surplusage, and hence no defect in it can affect the validity of the proceedings. R. S. 1805; 18 La. 475; 11 An. 557. X In a suit by a corporation the use of its corporate name is sufficient, without r naming any of its.officers; authority to sue is matter of proof when called for, ; . and not of pleading. Act 3fi of 1888; R. S. 684; C. P. 112; C. C. 432 ; 33 An. 946; 2 An. 1017.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Watkins, J.
The question for decision is raised upon án exception that was urged in favor of the insolvents and sustained — the opponent appealing from the judgment dismissing their opposition.
• The commercial firm of Lacaze & Reine, and the individual members thereof, made a cession of their property, under the insolvent law oE the State, and caused a meeting of their creditors to be convoked.
Subsequent to the convocation of the creditors; the Joseph Bowling Company, Limited, filed an opposition to the discharge of the insolvents, charging fraud and…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Jeanerette Rice & Milling Co. v. DurocherSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1909
- New Orleans Terminal Co. v. TellerSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1904
- Mioton v. Del CorralSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1913
- Interstate Trust & Banking Co. v. LichtentegLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1928