Davis v. Figaro

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Davis v. Figaro

2 La. App. 767, 1925 La. App. LEXIS 261

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 12, 1925

DocketNo. 6968

StatusPublished

This text of 2 La. App. 767 (Davis v. Figaro) 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

Davis v. Figaro, 2 La. App. 767, 1925 La. App. LEXIS 261 (La. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

ELLIOTT, J.

The plaintiff, Abraham Davis, instituted executory proceedings against defendant, Sam Figaro, the object and purpose of which was to have the tract of land with the buildings and improvements thereon described in plaintiff’s .petition seized and sold to pay three mortgage notes described in the petition and annexed .thereto, amounting in the aggregate to $500.00 with interest and attorney’s fees and said to be accrued by mortgage on said property.

[768]*768The defendant, Figaro, enjoined the sale alleging in his petition that Davis did not own the notes sued on; was a possessor of same in bad faith and holder in collusion from A. Becker; that the notes had been paid and Becker had no right nor title thereto and therefore could not convey any right to Davis. The record shows that Davis was duly- cited to answer the petition of said Figaro; that no answer was filed by said Davis and a judgment by default was entered in favor of Figaro and confirmed and signed by the judge.

Davis appealed, but has not filed a brief, nor suggested any error and the record contains rio note of evidence.

We have examined the record and do not, find any error by which it can be said that the judgment should not have been rendered.

In such cases we are unable to do more than affirm the judgment appealed from.

For the above reasons the judgment appealed from is affirmed, the said Davis to pay the cost of both courts.

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

ELLIOTT, J.

The plaintiff, Abraham Davis, instituted executory proceedings against defendant, Sam Figaro, the object and purpose of which was to have the tract of land with the buildings and improvements thereon described in plaintiff’s .petition seized and sold to pay three mortgage notes described in the petition and annexed .thereto, amounting in the aggregate to $500.00 with interest and attorney’s fees and said to be accrued by mortgage on said property.

[768]*768The defendant, Figaro, enjoined the sale alleging in his petition that Davis did not own the notes sued on; was a possessor of same in bad faith and holder in collusion from A. Becker; that the notes had been paid and Becker had no right nor title thereto and therefore could not convey any right to Davis. The record shows that Davis was duly- cited to answer the petition of said Figaro; that no answer was filed by said Davis and a judgment by default was entered in favor of Figaro and confirmed and signed by the judge.

Davis appealed, but has not filed a brief, nor suggested any error and the record contains rio note of evidence.

We have examined the record and do not, find any error by which it can be said that the judgment should not have been rendered.

In such cases we are unable to do more than affirm the judgment appealed from.

For the above reasons the judgment appealed from is affirmed, the said Davis to pay the cost of both courts.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 La. App. 767, 1925 La. App. LEXIS 261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-figaro-lactapp-1925.