Cefalu v. Scott Norris & Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Cefalu v. Scott Norris & Co.

4 La. App. 455, 1926 La. App. LEXIS 159

DecidedJune 26, 1926

StatusPublished

This text of 4 La. App. 455 (Cefalu v. Scott Norris & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cefalu v. Scott Norris & Co., 4 La. App. 455, 1926 La. App. LEXIS 159 (La. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

LECHE, J.

Plaintiff in this suit has seized and sequestered two checks payable to and in the possession of the defendant. At the time of the seizure, the defendant domiciled in the State of New York, had gone into bankruptcy, its assets placed in the hands of a trustee and the trustee had forwarded the checks to Mr. Charles Elliott, an attorney, residing in the parish of Tangipahoa in this state, for collection. The checks were then admittedly under the control of a bankruptcy court in the State of New York. But the courts of this state have no right to interfere with the possession and control of property which has been lawfully vested in a bankruptcy court. Loeb vs. Fisher, et al., 137 La. 132. It is therefore apparent that the seizure and sequestration of the two checks has been wrongfully obtained.

The judgment of the trial court setting aside the seizure and sequestration and refusing the demand of plaintiff for want of jurisdiction should be affirmed, and it so ordered.

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

LECHE, J.

Plaintiff in this suit has seized and sequestered two checks payable to and in the possession of the defendant. At the time of the seizure, the defendant domiciled in the State of New York, had gone into bankruptcy, its assets placed in the hands of a trustee and the trustee had forwarded the checks to Mr. Charles Elliott, an attorney, residing in the parish of Tangipahoa in this state, for collection. The checks were then admittedly under the control of a bankruptcy court in the State of New York. But the courts of this state have no right to interfere with the possession and control of property which has been lawfully vested in a bankruptcy court. Loeb vs. Fisher, et al., 137 La. 132. It is therefore apparent that the seizure and sequestration of the two checks has been wrongfully obtained.

The judgment of the trial court setting aside the seizure and sequestration and refusing the demand of plaintiff for want of jurisdiction should be affirmed, and it so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 La. App. 455, 1926 La. App. LEXIS 159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cefalu-v-scott-norris-co-lactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack