New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-09-11
.YlIR COURTS.
Eighth District COurt.

Henry Stafford vs. ILoS. L.. Maxwell.
Sheriff, and NJ. F. Soldin.-This is a suit in
which the plaintiff makes the following al
legations: That the Sheriff of the parish of
Orleans, acting under writ Of 1iert facias
from the Ninth District Court of the parish
of Natchitoches, issued on judgment in q
suit entitled Maria Felici SOldini vs.. Henry
Stafford, the Sheriff has seized and adver-
tiscd for sale and will sell, unless enjOined
and restrained therefrom, certain judg-
ment rendered June Is, 1870, by the Fourth
District Court of this city, III favor Of petit
toner against Daniel X. Carroll, in suit No.
% 1876 of the docket of said court, and en-
titled Henry Stafford VS.. D. 4. Carroll-said
judgment being for the sum of 4250O.
Petitioner AYERS that in his opinion said
pretended seizure Is illegal and null, and if
the sale is permitted to take place, it will
cause him rreparable injury. Petitioner
sets forth the following grounds of illegality
and nullity, tO-wit: That the said seizure
herein complained of was Of a Judgment
| rendered but not signed, the Judgment hav-
| ing been rendered on or about june l6,
1870. but not signed until June a. while the
pretended seizure thereof purports to have
been made OF or before June "a.
Petitioner AYERS that a Judgment is i'm
perfect and has no effect, and is not the
subject Of seizure, and can not, as u judg-
ment be seized in such case until the same
shall be signed.
But after said pretended seizure was
made, the said Judgment was signed and
the said ID. L. Carroll, the judgment debt
the Supreme Court, which is still pend
ing. That the said Judgment thus sus
pended by appeal is an incorporeal right, in
the nature of a claim of debt, and can not
justly be seized by virtue of writ of fieri
facias, except by propounding interrogato
ries to the Judgment debtor, and then await
ing the final decision OF the court thereon;
| and if confirmed. then the seizing creditor
will have the right, under and by virtue OF
his process of garnishntnt, to collect the
amount OF said judgment, or such portion
thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy said
writ OF tieri fici.!s.
That said judgment can not be sold al
| public sale. because. III the Very nature OF
| the case, it can not be legally appraised, for
! no appraiser can possihl Y ascertain what
will be the decision Of the Supreme COur!
upon the appeal. and without this knowl
! edge. no appraisenient could De fairly and
inteiligibly made for such decision will
settle whether it has OF has not any value
| whatever.
Petitioner further AYERS that the seizure,
so far as it purports to be Of petitioners i'll
terest in the suit aforesaid. is void for
vagueneSs, in that it gives no clue by which
bidder at the sale could be guided i'll
eforming an estimate of the value Of the said
interest. and that the only way to seize said
interest is by process of garnishmeHt.
Plaintiff asked for an injunction to pre-
vent the sale, which was granted by Judge
Dibbe.
A rule to the following effect was yester-
day filed i'll the case: That plaintiff show
cause why the injunction should not be set
aside, for these reasons:
l. Because plaintiffs petition and afida-
Wit disclose no grounds tor ali injunction.
,. Because the oath of the plaintiff to the
allegations of the petition was not taken be
fore an officer authorized 10 administer
oaths for such purposes.
The trial of the case has been fixed for
Tuesday, the twentieth instant.
Fourth Distric, Court.
Louis j. Weimess VS.. Il. T. Packwood.- -
Plaintiff. resident of New York, sold to
defendant on the eleventh of December
1863, two Bibles Of costly workmanship. for
which, including two book boxes and ex-
penses tor packing. he charged S522. Upon
anieablc demand payment was refused.
=