State v. Judge of the Commercial Court

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Judge of the Commercial Court

14 La. 590

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMarch 15, 1840

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 14 La. 590 (State v. Judge of the Commercial Court) 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

State v. Judge of the Commercial Court, 14 La. 590 (La. 1840).

Pincite

Opinion

Simon, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

A rule having been taken on the judge of the Commercial Court, to show cause why he should ,not grant a suspensive appeal from an interlocutory judgment by him rendered in the progress of this suit, directing the sheriff to deliver to Young Stephenson and William Coffin, the steam-boat Corvette, attached and sequestered at the suit of plaintiffs, on said defendants giving their bond in the sum of fifteen thousand dollars, with security, &c., shows for cause : That Stephenson & Coffin, to whom, it is alleged, that a fictitious and simulated sale of the boat attached and sequestered, was made by Haggerty, their co-defendant, have applied to bond the boat, and given bond, with sufficient security, in the sum ordered by the court; but that Haggerty did not appear and [592]*592join the motion to bond. He further shows, as his opinion, that the right to bond is given to the defendants by the Code of Practice; and that if, hereafter, the property should be found to be Haggerty’s, his co-defendants would be liable on their bond for the amount of the plaintiff’s claim, on their failing to produce the boat. He further gives, as his principal reason for refusing to grant the appeal, that the plaintiffs cannot suffer an irreparable injury, as the bond ought to be considered as a substitute for the boat.

The object of the plaintiffs’ action is to recover a sum of money, to secure which, they allege to have a mortgage and privilege on the steam-boat Corvette; it is true that they allege, in their petition, that Haggerty is the real owner of the boat, but they aver, also, that his co-defendants have an apparent and pretended title to said boat, which they attack as fraudulent and simulated; and in order to exercise their alleged right of mortgage and privilege, they seek to annul the sale.

We are not now to decide on the propriety or legality of the interlocutory judgment rendered by the judge of the Commercial Court; but it appears to us, that, instead of the boat itself, which, during the pendency of this suit, would lie idle in the port of New-Orleans, the plaintiffs having a bond and security to the amount of fifteen thousand dollars, it is a sufficient substitute for the boat. We agree with the judge that the interlocutory judgment complained of, cannot cause an irreparable injury, (Code of Practice,-566,) and we think he did not err in refusing to grant the suspensive appeal prayed for by plaintiffs.

Let the rule be discharged.

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

Simon, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

A rule having been taken on the judge of the Commercial Court, to show cause why he should ,not grant a suspensive appeal from an interlocutory judgment by him rendered in the progress of this suit, directing the sheriff to deliver to Young Stephenson and William Coffin, the steam-boat Corvette, attached and sequestered at the suit of plaintiffs, on said defendants giving their bond in the sum of fifteen thousand dollars, with security, &c., shows for cause : That Stephenson & Coffin, to whom, it is alleged, that a fictitious and simulated sale of the boat attached and sequestered, was made by Haggerty, their co-defendant, have applied to bond the boat, and given bond, with sufficient security, in the sum ordered by the court; but that Haggerty did not appear and [592]*592join the motion to bond. He further shows, as his opinion, that the right to bond is given to the defendants by the Code of Practice; and that if, hereafter, the property should be found to be Haggerty’s, his co-defendants would be liable on their bond for the amount of the plaintiff’s claim, on their failing to produce the boat. He further gives, as his principal reason for refusing to grant the appeal, that the plaintiffs cannot suffer an irreparable injury, as the bond ought to be considered as a substitute for the boat.

The object of the plaintiffs’ action is to recover a sum of money, to secure which, they allege to have a mortgage and privilege on the steam-boat Corvette; it is true that they allege, in their petition, that Haggerty is the real owner of the boat, but they aver, also, that his co-defendants have an apparent and pretended title to said boat, which they attack as fraudulent and simulated; and in order to exercise their alleged right of mortgage and privilege, they seek to annul the sale.

We are not now to decide on the propriety or legality of the interlocutory judgment rendered by the judge of the Commercial Court; but it appears to us, that, instead of the boat itself, which, during the pendency of this suit, would lie idle in the port of New-Orleans, the plaintiffs having a bond and security to the amount of fifteen thousand dollars, it is a sufficient substitute for the boat. We agree with the judge that the interlocutory judgment complained of, cannot cause an irreparable injury, (Code of Practice,-566,) and we think he did not err in refusing to grant the suspensive appeal prayed for by plaintiffs.

Let the rule be discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 La. 590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-judge-of-the-commercial-court-la-1840.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack