Case Name: T. C. Sachse vs. Citizens' Bank et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1885-04
Citations: 37 La. Ann. 364
Docket Number: No. 9387
Parties: T. C. Sachse vs. Citizens’ Bank et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 37
Pages: 364–368

Head Matter:
No. 9387.
T. C. Sachse vs. Citizens’ Bank et al.
An assignment of property to a third person without other considerations than in trust for the benefit) of creditors, exocuted in this State, belongs to a class of tenares not recognized by the low of Louisiana, is of no effect, and binding on no one.
"Where such assignment lias been made co a non-resident by a debtor against whom an order of seizure and sale has "been taken out, and is immediately followed by an injunction suit in the name of such assignee, to restrain the execution of such order, and by an application to remore the cause to the Federal Court, such assignee will be regarded as a mere nominal and collusive party, representing no interest but that of the assignors, the proceeding will he treated as a mere device to gain delay by such removal, and the order of removal should be denied.
A PPEAL from the Ninth District Court, Parish of Tensas. Youn<j,S.
Farrar & Kruttsehnitt and Wade 7?. Young for Plaintiff and Appellee.
Miller <& Finney and Steele <& Garrett for Defendant and Appellant.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Fenner, J,
This is an appeal from an order of removal of the caúselo the Federal Court. The judge, having recused himself, appointed an attorney to act as judge ad hoe, who sat on the trial of the petition for removal and rendered in open court the order of removal and also the order granting an appeal from the same. These orders were not signed, but were duly entered on the minutes of the court, as appears from the record certified by tlie 'clerk of the court.
The ground of the motion to dismiss is that the orders of removal and of appeal were not sighed by the judge ad hoe, and that the minutes of the court upon which said orders were entered were not signed by him, but by the regular judge of the court.
The orders, being rendered in open court and entered on the minutes, were of a character not requiring independent signature. The correctness of the minutes is sufficiently attested by the certificate of the clerk and the signature of the regular judge, who doubtless signed them because the proceedings in this case were probably but a part of those of the day for which the minutes were kept.
The appellee's objection is equivalent to saying that he has obtained no valid order of removal. If that be true, our action on the merits will either secure him one, which he desires, by affirming the ordCr, or in case of reversal, will leave him in no worse case, than that in which Ms own contention places him.
The motion to dismiss is, therefore, denied.