Levy v. Succession of Lehman
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Rightor, J. 1. An attachment against a non-resident does not fall by his death, but thereafter a> curator ad hoc may be appointed to his succession and his absent heirs, and judgment* rendered, with privilege and preference on the property attached.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Rightor, J. 1. An attachment against a non-resident does not fall by his death, but thereafter a> curator ad hoc may be appointed to his succession and his absent heirs, and judgment* rendered, with privilege and preference on the property attached. Bussey vs. Nelson,. Supreme Court, No. 7160. 2. And. as an attachment against a resident would fall hy death, therefore an attachment cannot issue against the succession of a resident; but the rule does not apply to that of' a non-resident. I. No court in Louisiana, either upon…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Todd, J.
The plaintiff, a creditor of I. L. Lelnnau, a resident of Kentucky, where the debt was contracted, and who died there, instituted a proceeding-by attachment, wherein was seized a stock of goods in this city in the possession of A. R. Lehman and Theodore Frois, • doing business under the name of Lehman & Frois. The suit was brought after the death of I. L. Lehman, the debtor, and it was .alleged that the goods were shipped to Lehtnau & Frois by I. L. Lehman during his lifetime, and belonged to him at his death, and that the title thereto set up…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Simpson v. BulkleySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1916
- First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Vicksburg v. DrexlerLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1936
- Perret v. ColemanSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1906
- HOUMA MORTG. & LOAN, INC. v. StouffletLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1992
- Succession of Williams v. Land Development Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1926