Hinderer v. Haines

5 Teiss. 193
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedFebruary 10, 1908
DocketNo. 4351 and 4426
StatusPublished

This text of 5 Teiss. 193 (Hinderer v. Haines) 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
Hinderer v. Haines, 5 Teiss. 193 (La. Ct. App. 1908).

Opinions

MOORE, J.

This is an appeal from an order of Court directing the sale of certain property provisionally seized, the sale having been ordered in accordance with Act No. 94 of 1900, and • at the request of plaintiff, on the ground that the property provisionally seized was of a perishable nature and subject to be lost or deterioated in value pending the suit.

The motion to dismiss is based on the ground that the -interlocutory order works no irreparable injury.

The motion must prevail.

If the defendant, who is the appellant here, should be successful in the suit and the writ of provisional seizure should be dissolved, the injury which he may sustain by the sale of his property thus provoked, would be compensable in money hence the injury would not be irreparable. It is well settled that as, a general rule, no injury can be considered irreparable where the damage or loss occasioned by the act complained of can be made good or repaired by the payment of money. State ex rel, Certing vs. Judge 104 La. 79; Schwan et al., vs. Schwan 52 A. 1193. The appeal is dismissed.

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

Related

State ex rel. Cotting v. Sommerville
104 La. 74 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 Teiss. 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hinderer-v-haines-lactapp-1908.