Case ID: la-app_6/html/0090-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "JONES, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 9582
    Orleans
    MICHEL v. KRAUSS
    (March 28, 1927. Opinion and Decree.)
    (April 21, 1927. Rehearing Refused.)
    
      (Syllabus by the Court)
    1. Louisiana Digest — Garnishment—Par. 67.
    The answers of a garnishee, when categorical, make full proof of the facts stated against the seizing creditor, until contradicted by the other evidence.
    2. Louisiana Digest — Appeal—Par. 625 The judgment of the trial court on question of fact, when clearly correct, will be affirmed.
    Appeal from Civil District Court, Division “C". Hon. E. K. Skinner, Judge.
    Action by F. Ralph Michel against Leopold Krauss.
    There was judgment for plaintiff and defendant appealed.
    Judgment affirmed.
    Gordon Boswell, Milo Williams, of New Orleans, attorneys for plaintiff, appellee.
    Frank Machica, of New Orleans, attorney for defendant, appellant.
   JONES, J.

This appeal is taken by the plaintiff from a judgment dismissing three rules to traverse the answers of three garnishees, Krauss Co., Ltd., Leon Heymann and Max Krauss.

In this court, appellant acquiesces in the judgment insofar as the Krauss Co., Ltd., is concerned, but he insists that the judgments in favor of the other two garnishees should be reversed.

In answer to the usual stereotyped interrogatories both garnishees filed sworn negative answers and plaintiff took a rule to traverse on the ground that the answers were false and evasive.

The only • witnesses examined by the . plaintiff were the garnishees themselves, and they both swore positively that their answers were correct.

Plaintiff seeks to prove these answers false by certain deductions from an audit of the books of Krauss Co., Ltd., supported by certain checks and paid bills.

It would serve no useful purpose to analyze the voluminous evidence, as only questions of fact are involved, and we entirely agree with the lower judge that the plaintiff has failed to disprove the answers.

For above reasons the judgment is affirmed.