Selig & Baughman Hardware Co. v. Parks

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Selig & Baughman Hardware Co. v. Parks

125 So. 199, 12 La. App. 379, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 759

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedDecember 31, 1929

DocketNo. 3677

StatusPublished

This text of 125 So. 199 (Selig & Baughman Hardware Co. v. Parks) 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

Selig & Baughman Hardware Co. v. Parks, 125 So. 199, 12 La. App. 379, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 759 (La. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

WEBB, J.

Plaintiff, Selig & Baughman Hardware Company, Inc., a judgment creditor of Emmett Parks, obtained the seizure of funds deposited to the credit of Parks with the Marion State Bank, and Mrs. Emma Parks, wife of Emmett Parks, intervened claiming that the funds belonged to her and had been deposited by her husband, acting as her agent to his credit, and she prayed that the property be released from seizure and decreed to belong to her.

On trial judgment was rendered rejecting intervener’s demands, maintaining the seizure and ordering the funds delivered to the sheriff and credited on the writ under which the property was seized, and the intervener appeals.

Neither of the parties has made any appearance here and from our review of the record, we find that the evidence established that the property belonged to the judgment debtor, Emmett Parks, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.

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

WEBB, J.

Plaintiff, Selig & Baughman Hardware Company, Inc., a judgment creditor of Emmett Parks, obtained the seizure of funds deposited to the credit of Parks with the Marion State Bank, and Mrs. Emma Parks, wife of Emmett Parks, intervened claiming that the funds belonged to her and had been deposited by her husband, acting as her agent to his credit, and she prayed that the property be released from seizure and decreed to belong to her.

On trial judgment was rendered rejecting intervener’s demands, maintaining the seizure and ordering the funds delivered to the sheriff and credited on the writ under which the property was seized, and the intervener appeals.

Neither of the parties has made any appearance here and from our review of the record, we find that the evidence established that the property belonged to the judgment debtor, Emmett Parks, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 So. 199, 12 La. App. 379, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 759, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/selig-baughman-hardware-co-v-parks-lactapp-1929.