Case ID: rob_6/html/0317-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Martin, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Pierre Montfleury Talhaud v. His Creditors.
    "Where the syndics of'the creditors of an insolvent have failed to furnish the bond required by law, a creditor may take a rule on them to show cause why another meeting of the creditors should not take place, to appoint other syndics in their place ; and the rule will be made absolute, in the absence of proof of a compliance with their obligation to furnish a bond. The creditor was under no obligation to take a rule on them to show cause why they should not give bond.
    Appeal from the Parish Court of New Orleans, Maurian, J.
    
      J. Seghers, for the appellants.
    
      L. Peirce, appellee, pro se.
    
   Martin, J.

The syndics are appellants from a ’judgment making absolute a rule obtained by Peirce, one of the creditors, requiring them to show cause why a new meeting of the creditors should not take place to appoint other syndics, on the ground of their having failed and neglected to give the bond required of them by law. They claimed the discharge of the rule, on the grounds that no opposition was filed to their appointment, within ten days ; and that the only course which could be taken against them was to require them to shQw cause why they should not give bond. They contend that any other course tends to involve the estate in difficulties, by invalidating their acts as syndics, and virtually annulling several judgments of rescissions obtained against them.

It does not appear to us that the court erred. The appellants might have easily claimed the discharge of the rule by giving the bond which the law required of them. Had a rule been taken against them, as they contend, to show cause why they should not give the bond, another rule would have become necessary, of the character of the present one.

The plaintiffs in the judgments of rescission, mentioned by the appellants, are not before us ; and it is not proper that we should express any opinion on the effect, which the appointment of new syndics may have on their acts.

Judgment affirmed.