New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-05-12

siou to bond the cotton in dispute, on Civ
ing the requisite security therefor. The
application was successful, and the cotton
restored to Daniels possession. On motion
made on the part of Daniels, to set aside
the writs of attachment and representation.
the court decided against the mover; but
while 1t sustained the action of Lockett g.
Lockett, and gave Judgment in their favor
against Mortimer for the amount demanded.
it also maintained Daniels, Intervention.
The cotton, during the period it was held
under the writs of attachment and seques.
tration issued in favor of Lockett g. Lockett.
was held upon a falling market, so that the
difference OF value at the date of its attach
ment ana sequestratiOn, and at the date of
its release upon BOND to Daniels, amounted
to the sum of $I775 so.
AS the proceeds of the sales of the cotton
did not cover the indebtedness of Mortimer
To Daniels, this loss of SITS 80, together
with SS9 % insurance, $1,000 counsel fees
Ii other expenses, amounting in all to
S443o ~, Is sought to be recovered in this
snlt. 1t is evident that the loss conse-
quent upon the taking of the cotton from
the possession of Daniels agent might be
held to be "A fit cause for a direct action on
the part of Daniels against LockAtt 81
Lockett, the plaintiffs i'll the writs of at
tachment and sequestratiOn; but Lockett
u Lockett being at this time not in a situa-
ton to respond to a Judgment for damages,
and as in the issuance of their writs of at
tachment and sequestration they gave no
bond with security responsive to Daniels,
he (Danielsl has with great ingenuity de-
vised a method by which he proposes To OBJ
viate that difficulty.
Notwithstanding the issuance of the writs
OF attachment and sequestration was sus-
tanned by the court, and notwithstanding
the court gave final judgment against
Mortimer and In favor of Lockett & L0ckett
IN the full amount claimed by them, vet
Daniels holds that Mortimer has suffered
damages at the hands of Lockett e. Lockett.
as his, Mortimer's, Indebtedness
TO Daniels was not cancelled to the extent
1t would have been had the writs of attach
ment and sequestration not been issued, to
wit: In the sum of Sl775 so.
But Mortimer had an interest in the cot
ton while in the possession of Daniels, for
non constdt that the proceeds of the sale of
the cotton might not have satisfied the debt
for which it was pledged, and have yielded
a surplus. That interest was not subject to
attachment under the laws of this State.
and If a loss accrued in consequence of such
attachment, said loss was, in as far as Nor
tlmer Is concerned, d%Gninun, dbSque i,Jurid;
Tor he might have bonded the cotton and
returned the same to the possession of
Daniels, or, as was his duty, he should have
satisfied the debt, which the Judgment of
the court has found that he justly owed to
the attaching creditors. 1t seems to the
that d mere statement Of the facts of
this case is to decide it.
The plaintiffs came to an opposite con.
clusion, and therefore Mortimer, having in
the meantime become a bankrupt, pur-
chased OF Mortimer's assignee, for the
nominal sum of fifty dollars, all his, the
said a~ssignee's interest in the bonds given
by Loekett IL Lockett for the issuance of
the writs of attachment and sequestration
III the suit OF Lockett s. LOckett VS.. Morti-
ner, in the Fifth District Court of New
Orleans; and connecting Herewith certain
sums as consequential damages herein in
Cured, such as $1,000 for attorneys fees,
swelling the claim from $I775 80, the
amount of loss, to $f438 10, the amount
herein demanded, brought this suit, stand
ing wholly in the shoes of Mortimer, and
possessing no other right of action than
that which Mortimer himself possessed.
Let there be Judgment for defendants, |
costs.