Case Name: P. Bradley & Co. v. Mrs. S. A. Woodruff and John McCrea
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1874-04
Citations: 26 La. Ann. 299
Docket Number: No. 3397
Parties: P. Bradley & Co. v. Mrs. S. A. Woodruff and John McCrea.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 299–302

Head Matter:
No. 3397.
P. Bradley & Co. v. Mrs. S. A. Woodruff and John McCrea.
■plaintiffs agreed to famish defendants with the means and supplies required to make a crop. Defendants agreed to ship their crop to the plaintiffs. Defendants made their crop and sent a portion of it to 25Tew Orleans, within the jurisdiction of the court a qua, to another person than the plaintiff. Said portion of the crop, on which plaintiffs claimed the furnishers’ privilege for supplies, was sequestered by them.
The Seventh District Court erred in entertaining jurisdiction, because the domicile of the defendants was in the parish of St. Bernard. The conservatory order of sequestration was improperly granted, and, at the trial, should have been set aside and the suit dismissed.
The court, having no jurisdiction of the persons of the defendants, had no authority to determine either the amount or character of the demand set up against them by the plaintiffs; it could not decide that defendants were indebted to plaintiffs in any specific sum, and that there was the furnisher of supplies privilege on the cotton sequestered.
Appeal from the Seventh District Court, parish of Orleans. Col-lens, J.
Budd & Grover, for plaintiffs and appellees. Bentinek JSgan, for defendants and appellants.

Opinion:
Wyly, J.
The defendants, who were Sued for $1772, balance of account for the years 1868 and 1869, set up by the plaintiffs as factors furnishing supplies, appeal from the judgment maintaining the seques tration of twelve bales of their cotton, and recognizing the plaintiffs'1 lien as furnisher of supplies for tie sum of $1175 42. The defendants being residents of the parish of St. Bernard, the court maintained their exception of domicile and rejected the demand for a personal judgment against them.
As the Seventh District Court had no jurisdiction, because the domicile of the defendants was in the parish of St. Bernard, the conservatory order of sequestration was improperly granted, and at the trial it should have been set aside and the suit dismissed.
The court having no jurisdiction of the persons of the defendants, had no authority to determine either the amount or character of the demand set up agaiust them by the plaintiffs; it could not decide that defendants were indebted to plaintiffs in any specific sum, and that there was the furnisher of supplies privilege on the cotton. Being without jurisdiction the court could make no order in the premises.
It is therefore ordered that the judgment appealed from be annulled, and it is now ordered that this suit be dismissed at the costs of appellees in both courts.