Case Name: CROWLEY BANK & TRUST CO. v. HURD
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1915-05-10
Citations: 137 La. 787
Docket Number: No. 21292
Parties: CROWLEY BANK & TRUST CO. v. HURD.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 137
Pages: 787–791

Head Matter:
(69 South. 175)
No. 21292.
CROWLEY BANK & TRUST CO. v. HURD.
(May 10, 1915.
On the Merits, June 7, 1915.
On Application for Rehearing, June 28, 1915.)
(Syllabus by the Oourt.)
On Motion to Dismiss.
1. Appeal and Error <&wkey;>382 — Appeal Bond —Injunction.
Where plaintiff in injunction has been condemned to pay the costs of court only, a bond for one-half over and above the amount of said costs is sufficient to sustain an appeal.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2036-2041; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;
On the Merits.
2. Mortgages &wkey;>504 — Executory Proceedings — Injunction—Writ.
When the defendant in executory proceedings prays for an injunction on the ground that he does not owe the full amount of the mortgage note, the writ should be worded so as to prevent the collection of the amount disputed, and allow the sale to be made to satisfy the undisputed debt. The plaintiff in the executory proceedings then has the option to allow the sale to be made to satisfy the undisputed debt or to suspend his executory proceedings until the injunction suit is decided.
[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Mortgages, Cent. Dig. §§ 1470, 1490-1500; Dec. Dig. 504.]
3. Injunction &wkey;>175 — Motion to Dissolve —Determination.
A motion to dissolve an injunction on the gleadings ought to be disposed of summarily. >ne that puts at issue the truth of the allegations on which the injunction issued should be referred to the merits, unless the injunction issued without bond for one of the causes mentioned in article 739 of the Code of Practice, in which case the plaintiff may be required to prove summarily the truth of his allegations.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Injunction. Cent. Dig. § 388; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;>175.]
4. Pledges <&wkey;58 — Collateral Security — Executory Proceedings — Injunction.
One who holds a mortgage note in pledge to secure a debt due by the maker of the mortgage note has no right to executory proceedings for more than is due, and should be enjoined from collecting the difference between the amount of the debt and the amount of the mortgage note held as collateral security.
[Ed. Note. — F'or other cases, see Pledges, Cent. Dig. §§ 186-194; Dee. Dig. &wkey;>58.]
Appeal from Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Acadia; William Campbell, Judge.
Action by the Crowley Bank & Trust Company against Charles H. Hurd. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals, and plaintiff moves to dismiss.
Motion denied, and judgment reversed, with directions.
Philip S. Pugh, of Crowley, for appellant. Smith & Garmouche, of Crowley, for appellee.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
SOMMERVILLE, J.
This is an executory proceeding, which was enjoined by the defendant, without bond, on the ground that the debt had been partially paid. There was judgment dissolving the injunction; and the writ was continued for the amount alleged by the defendant to be due, and admitted by plaintiff in executory proceedings, and the sale was ordered to be proceeded with for the sum of $2,750, with interest, etc. Defendant took a suspensive and devolutive appeal, and the bond was fixed at $250 by the court. Plaintiff moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the bond should be for $375.
Under the case of Levert v. John T. Moore Planting Co., Ltd., 133 La. 591, 63 South. 198, and authorities there cited, the bond of appeal was properly made to cover one-half over the costs of court. It will be presumed that the district judge, in fixing the amount of the bond in this case, fixed it at one-half over and above the amount of the costs of court. The record is before us, and the estimate of the district judge appears to have been quite liberal.
Plaintiff, and appellee, has not informed the court of the process by which he arrived at the-conclusion that the bond should have been for $375.
The motion to dismiss is denied.