Case ID: la-ann_5/html/0111-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Eustis, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James Robb v. William F. Wagner.
    No sheriff or United States marshal has the right, on an execution in favor of a third person, of taking away property on which the landlord has a privilege for rent, and selling the same, pending an injunction taken out by the landlord, without paying the rent for which the privilege exists.
    
      Where property on which a landlord has a privilege for rent, has been seized on execution, at the suit of a third person, the landlord has two remedies, either by way of third opposition, or by injunction.
    When the United States marshal has seized property, upon which a landlord has' a privilege’ for rent, in a suit by a third person, and the United States Court has no jurisdiction of a third opposition of the case, on account of the citizenship of the parties, the landlord may proceed against the marshal in the State courts.
    APPEAL by defendant from the Third District Court of New Orleans. Kennedy; J.
    In this case the judge of the district court gave the following judgment:
    “ The plaintiff has proved that he was the lessor of property occupied by Woodall, and that the rent claimed was due. He had, therefore, a lien and right of detention upon the property on the premises,' for the security of his rent. That lien was his property, and as valuable to him as if he were owner of the property itself; and no sheriff or marshal, under execution against any third person, had any right to take away the property, before paying the landlord.
    “ It was also proved that the injunction was served before the sale, consequently, the defendant acted in opposition to the order of the court, and made himself directly liable to the plaintiff. The United States District Court was without jurisdiction of the plaintiff’s claim, by reason both of the amount, and of the citizenship of the parties. In cases before, the State courts, the party complaining has his choice of an opposition or a separate suit; but in this case the plaintiff would be without remedy, unless the State courts entertained his demand. See Daner v. Vail, 7 Martin, 436 ; Bauduc v. Nicholson, 2 L. R. 202; 1st Kent’s Corns. 410, edition 1844 ; Slocum v. Mayberry, 2d Wheaton, 12; Bruen v. Ogden, 6 Halsted, 370.
    “ It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the plaintiff recover of the defendant, Wm. F. Wagner, the sum of four hundred and fifty dollars, with interest at the rate of five per cent per annum, from the 10th of July, 1848, until paid, and the costs of suit.”
    
      Benjamin and Micou, for appellee. T. A. Clarice, for appellant.
   The judgment of the court was pronounced by

Eustis, C. J.

For the reasons given by the judge of the district court, judgment affirmed, with costs.