Cooper v. Hodge

17 La. 476
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedJanuary 15, 1841
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 17 La. 476 (Cooper v. Hodge) 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
Cooper v. Hodge, 17 La. 476 (La. 1841).

Opinion

Martin, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff is appellant from a judgment discharging a rule which he had obtained in order to render the defendant liable as the bail of M. Hunt, against whom the plaintiff had obtained judgment, and caused to be [478] issued writs of fieri facias and capias ad satisfaciendum, on which the sheriff returned nulla bona and non est inventus.

The appellee’s counsel has contended that his client was released from any obligation resulting from the bail bond, by the act abolishing imprisonment for debt, approved the 28th March, 1840, and promulgated the 16th April, following. The capias was issued the 30th March, 1840, returnable the first Monday of May, following, and returned on the 13th of that month.

The judge a quo, was of opinion, that on the repeal of a law, every proceeding begun, but not perfected under it, becomes absolutely void. In this opinion we concur. We have held that if judgment be correotly given under a law which is repealed pending the appeal, this court is bound to reverse it. State v. Johnson et al. 12 La. Rep. 547 ; 13 Id. 497.

The act abolishing imprisonment for debt above referred to, repealed the arts. 729, 730 and 731, of the Code of Practice, which authorizes the issuing and consequently the execution of the capias ad satisfaciendum. The delivery of a defendant to his bail is for the sole purpose that the latter may keep him, in order that he be forthcoming after judgment shall have been obtained, if the plaintiff see fit to have him confined until judgment be satisfied, or he be otherwise discharged in due course of law. This imprisonment being now forbidden by law, there can be no object in the detention of the defendant, by the bail. Leas neminem cogit ad vana.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the commercial court be affirmed, with costs.

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

Related

Segura v. Frank
630 So. 2d 714 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1994)
Dripps v. Dripps
366 So. 2d 544 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1979)
Fullilove v. US Casualty Company of New York
129 So. 2d 816 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1961)
City of New Orleans v. Ryman
79 So. 2d 573 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1955)
Hymel v. Central Farms & Shipping Co.
165 So. 177 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1935)
Ouachita Securities Corporation v. Cooper
165 So. 178 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1935)
Cassard v. Tracy
52 La. Ann. 835 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1900)
Carnes v. Parish of Red River
29 La. Ann. 608 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1877)
City of New Orleans v. Southern Bank
15 La. Ann. 89 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1860)
Scott v. Duke
3 La. Ann. 253 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1848)
Frey v. Hebenstreit
1 Rob. 561 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1842)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 La. 476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cooper-v-hodge-la-1841.