Moore v. Angiolette

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Moore v. Angiolette

10 Mart. 532

DecidedJanuary 15, 1823

StatusPublished

This text of 10 Mart. 532 (Moore v. Angiolette) 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

Moore v. Angiolette, 10 Mart. 532 (La. 1823).

Pincite

Opinion

Porter, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. This appeal is taken from a decision of the judge of the first instance refusing to [533]*533dissolve an attachment, which had been prayed for on the grounds that the facts stated in the petition were untrue.

East'n District. Jan. 1823. Strong proof ought to be required, on a motion to dissolve an attachment. Smith, for the plaintiffs, Seghers for the defendant.

The testimony, taken in the court below, to disprove the allegation of an intention to permanently remove from the state, comes up with the record, and has been perused by us. We agree in the conclusion of the district judge, whose decision, on questions of fact, always prevails in this court, unless manifestly erroneous. The evidence certainly renders the matter doubtful; but the court below judged soundly in requiring strong proof in a case of this kind; for, a mistake in dissolving, might cause the plaintiff to lose his debt, while an error on the other side could produce no injury, except compelling the defendant to bring an action on the bond, which the law has provided for his security, in case the attachment was illegally taken out.

It is therefore decreed, that the judgment of the district court be affirmed with costs.

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

Porter, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. This appeal is taken from a decision of the judge of the first instance refusing to [533]*533dissolve an attachment, which had been prayed for on the grounds that the facts stated in the petition were untrue.

East'n District. Jan. 1823. Strong proof ought to be required, on a motion to dissolve an attachment. Smith, for the plaintiffs, Seghers for the defendant.

The testimony, taken in the court below, to disprove the allegation of an intention to permanently remove from the state, comes up with the record, and has been perused by us. We agree in the conclusion of the district judge, whose decision, on questions of fact, always prevails in this court, unless manifestly erroneous. The evidence certainly renders the matter doubtful; but the court below judged soundly in requiring strong proof in a case of this kind; for, a mistake in dissolving, might cause the plaintiff to lose his debt, while an error on the other side could produce no injury, except compelling the defendant to bring an action on the bond, which the law has provided for his security, in case the attachment was illegally taken out.

It is therefore decreed, that the judgment of the district court be affirmed with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 Mart. 532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-angiolette-la-1823.