Case ID: la-ann_28/html/0530-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      MoegaN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 6281.
    Wm. J. Taylor vs. Kehlor, Updike & Co. Kehlor Brothers, Intervenors.
    Plaintiff recovered j udgment against tho defendants, Kehlor, updiko & Co., who arc non-rosidenis, in a suit by attachment. Execution being issued, several partios woro garnisliood. Some of tho garnishees answered that they held property belonging to Kehlor Brothers, but that they held nothing belonging to Kehlor, Up-diko & Co. The firm of Kehlor, updiko & Co. was dissolved while tho suit of the plaintiff against them was pending. Kehlor Brothers intervene and claim tho property seized under the garnishment process.
    Tho suit was filed on the thirteenth of May, 1870. A motion to bond was made by Wooldridge & Thomas, attorneys for defendants, on tho sixth of June, 1870, and, on their motion, bond having been furnished, tho property attached was released. Thomas was appointed curator ad hoe on tho seventh of October, 1871, and iiled an answer in that capacity.
    On tho fourteenth of December following, Wooldridge & Thomas, of counsel for defendants, moved for a commission to take testimony on their behalf, and the affidavit necessary to obtain the commission is made by Wooldridge, who swears that he is of counsel for defendants.
    It is ovident therefore that tho defendants were in court before tho appointment of curator ad hoc. was made.
    under these pleadings tho decree of tho court was, that plaintiff hayo and recover judgment against tho defendants for sixteen hundred dollars, with legal interest from judicial demand and costs, with privilege upon the property attached.
    This judgment was a personal one, and can be executed in tho usual manner, by seizure of tho defendants’ property wherever found.
    The proposition that the property of one firm can not bo attached to pay tho debt of another is correct as a general rule. But it has been held, correctly, too, that “ tho attachment in this State of the interest of a non-resident in the property of a foreign commercial firm, for a debt due a citizen of this State, is not forbidden by any law or opposed by any consideration of public policy; but, on tho contrary, is recommended as a matter of remedial justice in favor of our own citizens.”
    In this ease the plaintiff is a resident of this State; tho defendants are non-residents. There is property belonging to his debtors within tho jurisdiction of our courts. That property must be held liable for his debt.
    APPEAL from the Sixth District Court, parish of Orleans. Saucier, J.
    
      T. Gilmore & Sons, for plaintiff and appellee.
    
      Breaux, Fenner <£• Hall, for intorvenors and appellants.
   MoegaN, J.

In April, 1874, plaintiff recovered judgment against the defendants, Kehlor, Updike & Oo., who are non-residents. His suit was instituted in May, 1870. In May, 1874, he issued execution and garnisheed several parties. Some of the garnishees answered that they held property belonging to Kehlor Brothers, but that they held nothing-belonging- to Kehlor, Updike & Oo.

The firm of Kehlor, Updike & Oo. -was dissolved while the suit of the plaintiff against them -was pending.

Kehlor Brothers intervene in this proceeding and claim the property seized under the garnishment process. They assert — •

First — That the judgment which plaintiff seeks to enforce is one by attachment; and

Second — That the property of one firm can not be attached to pay the debt of another.

The original suit commenced by attachment, and a curator ad hoc was appointed to represent the absent defendants, -who answered in his official capacity. The curator was J. W. Thomas, Esq., a member of the bar, and a member of the legal firm of Wooldridge & Thomas. The suit was filed on the thirteenth of May, 1870. A motion to bond was made by Wooldridge & Thomas, attorneys for defendant, on the sixth of June, 1870, and on t-lieir motion, bond having bpen furnished, the property attached was released. Thomas was appointed curator ad hoc on the seventh of October, 1874, and filed an answer in that capacity. On the fourteenth of December following, Wooldridge & Thomas, of counsellor defendants, moved for a commission to take testimony in their bohalf, and the affidavit necessary to obtain the commission is made by E. Wooldridge, who swears that he is of counsel for the defendants. It is evident, therefore, that the defendants wore in court before the appoint-, ment of curator acl hoc was made.

Under these pleadings the decree of this court was that “ plaintiffs have and recover judgment against the defendants for sixteen hundred-dollars, with legal interest from judicial demand, and costs of both c .rarts, with privilege upon the property attached.”

This judgment was, wo think, a personal judgment, and can bo executed in the usual manner, by seizure of the defendants’ property wherever found.

The second proposition, that the property of one firm can not be attached to pay the debt of another, is as a general rule correct. But fi-lias been held, and correctly, we think, that “ the attachment in this State of the interest of a non-resident in the property of a foreign commercial firm, for a debt due a citizen of this State, is not forbidden by any law or opposed by any consideration of public policy ; but, on the contrary, is recommended as a matter of remedial justice in favor of our own citizens.” Frost & Co. vs. White, 14 An. 140.

In the case before us the plaintiff is a resident of this State. The defendants are non-residents. There is property belonging to his debtors within the jurisdiction of our courts, and we think it is liable for his debt.

Judgment affirmed.