Craig v. Yorke

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Craig v. Yorke

1 Gunby 44

DecidedJuly 1, 1885

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Gunby 44 (Craig v. Yorke) 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

Craig v. Yorke, 1 Gunby 44 (La. Ct. App. 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

Gunby, J.

The dissolution of a sequestration does not affect the main demand and, therefore, plaintiff’s proceeding with the trial of the main action does not ratify or acquiesce in the dissolution of the incidental demand. There is no reason why plaintiff should not proceed with the trial of his case on the merits in the lower court, pending an appeal to this Court from an interlocutory order dissolving his sequestration.

2. An attorney-at-law has authority to sign his client’s name to bonds for attachment, sequestration, etc.; he is the agent of his client, authorized to take all legal steps he deems wise and necessary for the collection of the debt. 6 An. 704, 706; 10 An. 350; C. P. 237, 245. The words “ attorney in fact,” in C. P. 245, mean “ attorney-at-law ; ” otherwise, the use in that Article of the synonymous words “agent” and “ attorney in fact,” is a vain repetition.

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

Gunby, J.

The dissolution of a sequestration does not affect the main demand and, therefore, plaintiff’s proceeding with the trial of the main action does not ratify or acquiesce in the dissolution of the incidental demand. There is no reason why plaintiff should not proceed with the trial of his case on the merits in the lower court, pending an appeal to this Court from an interlocutory order dissolving his sequestration.

2. An attorney-at-law has authority to sign his client’s name to bonds for attachment, sequestration, etc.; he is the agent of his client, authorized to take all legal steps he deems wise and necessary for the collection of the debt. 6 An. 704, 706; 10 An. 350; C. P. 237, 245. The words “ attorney in fact,” in C. P. 245, mean “ attorney-at-law ; ” otherwise, the use in that Article of the synonymous words “agent” and “ attorney in fact,” is a vain repetition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Gunby 44, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/craig-v-yorke-lactapp-1885.