Florance v. Nolan

The judgment of the court (King, I. absent,) was pronounced By

Slidell, J.

It is ilnnecésary to decide the question préseiited By thb appellant; whether the landlord had a privilege, upon the goods removed by purchasers, for rent not due at the time of removal.

The'action does not rest simply upon the assertion ‘of a privilege, but is also & revocatory action under the provisions of art. 1965 et seq. of the Code. It i& satisfactorily proved that Nolan~was insolvent, to the knowledge of the appellant; hnd, although there may have been no moral fraud, the receiving of that portion ’of the goods…