Livingston v. Dick

1 La. Ann. 323
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedOctober 15, 1846
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 1 La. Ann. 323 (Livingston v. Dick) 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
Livingston v. Dick, 1 La. Ann. 323 (La. 1846).

Opinion

The judgment of the court was pronounced by

Siidem,, J.

William Dick, the present defendant, applied for and obtained an order of seizure and sale, upon an instrument in writing, called by him in his petition a mortgage in the form of a deed of trust, commanding the sheriff to seize and sell the slaves mentioned in the deed, to satisfy the sum of $1706 10, with interest from the 15th January, 1844, and costs. The present plaintiff, Livingston, then sued out an injunction against Dick, enjoing the sale of the property. The defendant in injunction filed a written motion to dissolve the injunction, in which he alleges as grounds for the dissolution:

1st. .That he had not been served with a citation, but that the plaintiff had induced the sheriff to desist from proceeding in the case. This ground hardly requires notice. The objection of absence of citation was clearly abandoned by the defendant’s appearance and pleading in the cause, and going to trial before a jury upon the merits, without any disposition made of that part of the motion.

2d. The insufficiency of the affidavit, “as no particular fact is sworn to, and the affidavit is i ndefinite, and does not state what facts are sworn to.” fidavit appears to us sufficient. It is that, “ the facts and allegations the above petition are true and correct, and that those facts stated' belief, he believes to be correct.”

The motion then assumes the form of an answer, and states thalj tions of the petition are untrue, specially denying a portion of : answer concludes with a prayer, “ that the plaintiff be ruled to prov^kj mary manner, the truth of the facts alleged in his petition or oppositf on his failure to do so, that his opposition be rejected, the injunction dissolve' with interest at ten per cent on the amount enjoined, and special damages, twenty per cent for counsel fees and other expenses herein, and for general relief.”

Upon these pleadings the cause was sumbitted to a jury, who returned the following verdict: “We, the jury, find for the defendant, that the injuction be, dissolved, with five per cent interest from judicial demand, and ten per cent special damages.” Upon this verdict the court rendered a judgment decreeing, “ that the injunction be dissolved, and that the defendant recover from Aaron Livingston, and the securities on the bond, in solido, inter at five per cent, [324]*324from judicial demand, on the amount enjoined $ 1710 10, and ten per cent on the same amount, as special damages, with costs of suit.” A remittitur was entered by Dick for the five per cent interest, from judicial demand up to the date of service of the injunction.

From this judgment the plaintiff and his sureties have appealed ; and the defendant has filed an answer to the appeal, in which he prays that the judgment be amended so as to give him twenty per cent special damages, instead of ten per cent given by the court below, and for general relief.

We have been thus particular in stating the pleadings and proceedings in this cause, because, from a consideration of them it deary results that, although numerous points have been raised, the only questions before this court are, whether the order of seizure and sale was properly issued; and whether, supposing the case to have been converted from a suit by executory process, into an ordinary hypothecary action to have the slaves decreed to be subject to the mortgage and applied to the payment of the alleged debt, the defendant, Dick, has shown any right to such relief. No judgment has been asked against Dick personally, either in the court below, or in this court.

It is evident that the seizing creditor had no right to proceed by order of seizure and sale. The so called mortgage was not an authentic act.

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

Related

McCullough v. Bridges
245 So. 2d 319 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 La. Ann. 323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/livingston-v-dick-la-1846.