The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1869-04-06

the writ of seqnestrstion found O man wearing
the badge Of police officer In possession Of the
store who referred him to the chief Of police.
The deputy aSserwards, under Instructions
wss tben Informed that Letchford Co. had pur-
chased the said store. and was furnished BY the
chiefs aid. named BoyIsn. with an order to the
officer In charge of the store not to interfere with
Ian went to the store Of Letchford & Co.
70 inform them Of the intended seizure.
From there they went to the store Of plaintiffs.
and thence TO make the seizure, all on the 2lst
September, 1865. On the trial, Letchford & Co.
Introduced In evidence the notarial act Of sale,
dated September 18th, 1866. from defendant Drey.
fus, 70 them Of the stock, fixtures and appur-
tenances OF o grocery store Of the corner Of
Magazine and Orange streets, for the price Of
139S %, received BY satisfsction and settlemsns
ers on the note OF the vendor Drsyfus, for said
sum, dated September 7th, 1856, and due st sixty
days from i,s date. which seems 70 have been re.
tanned BY the veDdses. This oct was witnessed
police, who had accompanied Mr.. Mos, OF the
boute OF Letchford 4 Co., to the store OF Dreyfus
on the day Of sale, which visit resulted in eli the
parties repairing to the notary 70 PISS the act OF
closed and the Keys with the lease turned over to
Moss, who placed the first mentioned police officer
IN charge as keeper. Dreyfas appearing not TO
have any thing more 10 DO with the store there
si Ts "a. -. :, q.
s AZ VIC un's. VI ponos p.o'S :. s. .
uals, and that no intimidation was used TO induce
.,o ~ nv INC &C. s;,e; ~ ,t
~. - saow .hss Dreyus - ineeoseo W sne e
rh;cS ~. ,,.a ,;.s s ~ s.e ~, Ut
Ssss ~ sSs al. gwen 0u' "A' no' uu' - 'n'
It Il evident, Notwithstanding the unusual cir.
cumstancss, that the sale was real, and was fol-
se;.r.. 49, ~ -. =, nne.s..s, py IL. ~ .re
~. ronssns ,hst ~ u,orq,tv hso insa
I ~. 0on nun .n, NC prop ysns .t
az -, Ia Ill :. .ao LIZ p,.oo ~
sra my S Su''o .ag Usses u
nr.n~ IA asS - nta,r;,. :. .,s.,,. ~ ts.
tha. c,r,h.r e,nt.rS 80 sS,;s,;. ~ IL ~ -
snsy snss VIZ lug VI
pI;sd IN mi. c.se =. he ;ntsrv.nor. SS not Ala =,
iimine an execution TO The pes Of fraud sst nm in
the answer 70 the petition Of Intervention, In sup
port OF which they cite the case Of Danjesn VI.
BIackeer, Is A., 595. On this point they reserved
bill Of exceptions to the action Of the judge a
quo In sustaining the motion Of the intervenors to
strike out OF the answer the charges Of fraud and
unjust preference, and 10 hear no evidence thereon
merits had begun and evidence admitted, and 70
which motion plaintiffs objected on several
grounds. ~ -
The Judge after reasoning and citing many au-
thorities Concludes as follows:
The only question then that can be examined
collateraliy in such cases il that OF stimulation
In this case the right TO seize was predicatsd SOLE
y on the vendors lien, and a. there was 9 real
sale and delivery was made prior 10 the seizure
the lien was thei eby lost, co. O. 3l94) and the an
nulina Of such sale for fraud could not restore
the privilege and thus maintain the representation
but would subject the property fraudulenty trans.
ftrred to the payment OF the plaintiffs c. @. 1874
The Code contemplates that contracts made In
fraud of creditors shall be annulled by the revo.
catory action. and this only when the debtor has
not properly sulnclent 70 pay inc complaining
We mu,t conclnde that The pIsintiff. coula mot
in tbis indirect mode. SET aside a sale. althourh
fraudulent ana subject the property 10 their writ
of seouest.stion. and that the iudoe a ono ala
NOT err in refusng 10 trv thu ousston of fraud on
tbe Intervention. he dd NOT restrain them from
provine simnlstion. Jadsmsnt sfirmsd' '''A'
.ssoc,.-, ,r-s-,o.
'.Sii0s ho.S
NO. l4zI-hoDt b. eitchsn, appellee, vs. Jno.
Dung and others. Catnarine Glynn appellant.
Appeal rom NE lnird Dhtrics Court OF New Or
leans. Cotton a henriques for pianun and h. q.
heI,y ior oeieno,nt.
Inc oeienssnt mrs. flynn mas appeaieo from
Judgment rendered Against ner - indorser OF .
~ osS.ny no'' niSue We so'e1' W JUN Aouns
Esr defense .. chs, ars aeu.na ma. ma. mad.
-, ~ r.Sn - 10 Suo es.eue hos maue
i. ,Ss,sfors a,.cb.rs,d anu 'hA iAoofse' sne
II h nrc.d Nv n7sintif thai .f,e, n,o...t Al.
indorser rspe.tsaly nTom,,ed to nsy ne no ~
80. 49, 1000