Elliott Electric Co. v. Clark & Melat Drilling Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Elliott Electric Co. v. Clark & Melat Drilling Co.

133 So. 530, 16 La. App. 166, 1931 La. App. LEXIS 483

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedApril 9, 1931

DocketNo. 3221

StatusPublished

This text of 133 So. 530 (Elliott Electric Co. v. Clark & Melat Drilling 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

Elliott Electric Co. v. Clark & Melat Drilling Co., 133 So. 530, 16 La. App. 166, 1931 La. App. LEXIS 483 (La. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

WEBB, J.

Plaintiff proceeded against defendant, a non-resident, by attachment, under which property belonging to the defendant was seized and bonded by defendant under the provisions of article 259, Code of Practice; and thereafter judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff on default, from which judgment defendant appealed.

Appellant has not made any appearance here, and we do not know what was the basis of the appeal; that is, whether defendant claims there was a defect in the citation and seizure of the property, or that the evidence was insufficient to establish the debt claimed.

As stated, however, defendant bonded the property attached, and thereby cured any informality in the service of citation and submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the court (Williams v. Gilkeson-Sloss Commission Co., 45 La. Ann. 1013, 13 So. 394; First National Bank v. Johnson, 130 La. 288, 57 So. 930), and, from our review of the evidence presented on trial of the cause, we find that the debt claimed against defendant was established.

The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.

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