McCarthy v. Baze

26 La. Ann. 382
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedMay 15, 1874
DocketNo. 3470
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 26 La. Ann. 382 (McCarthy v. Baze) 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
McCarthy v. Baze, 26 La. Ann. 382 (La. 1874).

Opinion

Morgan, J.

Plaintiff obtained judgment against the defendants. In execution thereof he seized certain movables found in their office. Lloyd intervened and claimed the property. He had leased the office in which the movables were found to defendants. At the time of the lease some of the property seized was in the office. It belonged to Lloyd. This property was not subject to the plaintiff’s judgment, and the district court did not err in so deciding.

The balance of the property Lloyd claims under a bill of sale which he produces. At the time the sale was passed the defendants owed him only sixty dollars, and this for rent. The property remained in the possession and under the control of the defendants. Lloyd says it so remained with them as his agent, etc.. But there was no delivery, and this was essential. The judgment of the district court upon this point was correct.

[383]*383There was error, however, in condemning Lloyd to pay the costs. A portion of the property seized belonged to him. He injoined the sale thereof. Judgment was rendered in his favor for a part of his claim. The costs should have followed the judgment.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that in so far as the judgment of the district court condemns the intervenor and third opponent to. pay the costs of the suit, it be avoided, annulled and reversed, and that in all other respects it be affirmed. Costs of appeal to be paid by plaintiff.

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

Related

Succession of White
127 So. 883 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1930)
Hart v. Polizzotto
122 So. 64 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1929)
Moreland v. Monarch Mining Co.
178 P. 175 (Montana Supreme Court, 1919)
Howcott v. Smart
63 So. 281 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
26 La. Ann. 382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccarthy-v-baze-la-1874.