Case ID: la-ann_17/html/0008-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Hyman, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wallace Lithgow & Co. v. Charles Byrne.
    A* niandate must be express in oi’dei* to sue out a writ of sequestration.
    from the Sixth District Court of New Orleans, Howell, J",
    
      Whitaker, Fellows & Mills, for plaintiffs and appellants. A. Lolhrop, for defendant.
    
      Whitaker, Fallows & Mills, for appellants.
    
    The question resolves itself into this : What evidence of agency is required under Art. 276 C. P., to authorize a writ of sequestration based on the agent’s affidavit ? It will be noticed that Art. 276 does not declare that any evidence as to the fact of agency beyond the affidavit itself is necessary; and it is respectfully submitted that such affidavit is sufficient. It is a well settled rule, applicable to conservatory process, that the affidavit is prima facie evidence of the facts authorizing the writ. This principle is fully recognized as late as the case of fane W Johnston v. Geo'. W. Johnston, 13 An. 581.
    The defendant offered no evidence to rebut or contradict this prima faene proof, which it was necessary, as stated by the court in the above' ease, for him to do.
    The error of the learned District Judge, it is respectfully submitted, arose from the fact that he viewed the additional and subsequent approval of the agent’s acts, by the plaintiffs, as the only evidence of agency, not considering that since prooí was intended only as corroborative of the prima facie proof — the affidavit — and not as substantive proof.
   Hyman, C. J.

Plaintiff appealed from the judgment of the lower court, - setting aside, on motion of defendant, a writ of sequestration issued in this case.

■ One of the grounds of the motion is, that the affidavit for sequestration • is informal and insufficient.

William Pyne, who is no party to this suit, made the affidavit; but in no part thereof does he state that he had authority from plaintiff to make such an oath.

. There is no allegation in the petition stating such agency; nor any evidence whatever thereof.

Such agency must be special (see Civil Code 2966), and there must be evidence thereof produced to the court, by affidavit or otherwise, before a writ of sequestration can be sued out by an agent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Howell, J., recused.

Jones, J., absent.