Adeline Sugar Factory Co. v. Theriot

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Adeline Sugar Factory Co. v. Theriot

52 So. 667, 126 La. 471, 1910 La. LEXIS 675

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJune 6, 1910

DocketNo. 18,205

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 52 So. 667 (Adeline Sugar Factory Co. v. Theriot) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adeline Sugar Factory Co. v. Theriot, 52 So. 667, 126 La. 471, 1910 La. LEXIS 675 (La. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

PROYOSTY, J.

Defendant was a tenant on plaintiff’s plantation for the year 1909. Plaintiff had sold six mules to defendant, and defendant had sold them back to plaintiff, and then plaintiff had leased them to defendant for the year 1909. After the expiration (or judicial dissolution) of the land lease, and after the expiration of the mules lease, plaintiff. demanded the return of the mules, and, on defendant’s refusal to return them, sued out a sequestration. Defendant pleaded that he had never sold back the mules to plaintiff, and had never rented them from plaintiff, and that the documents showing these transactions were false; and he so testified. The documents were shown to have been duly executed by defendant. The sequestration was dissolved with damages; and the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, for the reason that plaintiff had not shown any grounds for its alleged fear that defendant would conceal, part with, or dispose of the mules during the pendency of the suit.

We think that, in the light of our jurisprudence, a distinction must be made between cases involving ownership and possession and those involving merely a privilege, with respect to the degree of proof required for maintaining a sequestration. In cases involving ownership and possession, the fear of the plaintiff must be considered to be justified by the mere fact of the denial of his ownership, coupled with the present opportunity of the defendant to dispose of the property. Boatner v. Wade, 14 La. Ann. 695 ; Lannes v. Courege, 31 La. Ann. 74; Yun Loy Co. v. Rosser, 52 La. Ann. 1728, 28 South. 251. In cases involving merely a privilege, some further proof is required. Vives v. Robertson, 52 La. Ann. 11, 26 South. 756.

The case at bar falls within the first of these classes; hence the sequestration should have been maintained.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of the Court of Appeal and of the district court herein be set aside, in so far as they dissolve the sequestration and condemn plaintiff to pay damages, and that the sequestration herein be maintained at the cost of defendant, and that the judgment be in all other respects affirmed ; defendant to pay the costs of this suit.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PROYOSTY, J.

Defendant was a tenant on plaintiff’s plantation for the year 1909. Plaintiff had sold six mules to defendant, and defendant had sold them back to plaintiff, and then plaintiff had leased them to defendant for the year 1909. After the expiration (or judicial dissolution) of the land lease, and after the expiration of the mules lease, plaintiff. demanded the return of the mules, and, on defendant’s refusal to return them, sued out a sequestration. Defendant pleaded that he had never sold back the mules to plaintiff, and had never rented them from plaintiff, and that the documents showing these transactions were false; and he so testified. The documents were shown to have been duly executed by defendant. The sequestration was dissolved with damages; and the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, for the reason that plaintiff had not shown any grounds for its alleged fear that defendant would conceal, part with, or dispose of the mules during the pendency of the suit.

We think that, in the light of our jurisprudence, a distinction must be made between cases involving ownership and possession and those involving merely a privilege, with respect to the degree of proof required for maintaining a sequestration. In cases involving ownership and possession, the fear of the plaintiff must be considered to be justified by the mere fact of the denial of his ownership, coupled with the present opportunity of the defendant to dispose of the property. Boatner v. Wade, 14 La. Ann. 695 ; Lannes v. Courege, 31 La. Ann. 74; Yun Loy Co. v. Rosser, 52 La. Ann. 1728, 28 South. 251. In cases involving merely a privilege, some further proof is required. Vives v. Robertson, 52 La. Ann. 11, 26 South. 756.

The case at bar falls within the first of these classes; hence the sequestration should have been maintained.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of the Court of Appeal and of the district court herein be set aside, in so far as they dissolve the sequestration and condemn plaintiff to pay damages, and that the sequestration herein be maintained at the cost of defendant, and that the judgment be in all other respects affirmed ; defendant to pay the costs of this suit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 So. 667, 126 La. 471, 1910 La. LEXIS 675, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adeline-sugar-factory-co-v-theriot-la-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack