Case Name: PHILLIPS v. THOMPSON
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1917-03-12
Citations: 142 La. 5
Docket Number: No. 21807
Parties: PHILLIPS v. THOMPSON.
Judges: SOMMERVILLE, J., concurs.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 142
Pages: 5–9

Head Matter:
(76 South. 215)
No. 21807.
PHILLIPS v. THOMPSON.
(March 12, 1917.
On Rehearing, June 30, 1917.)
(Syllabus by the Court.)
1. Execution <&wkey;172(7) — Costs—Imposition.
Where the owner of property enjoins the seizure and sale thereof on the ground of illegality, and on appeal the seizing creditor releases the property seized, the costs of the district and appellate courts must be paid by the defendant, the seizing creditor.
2. Execution <&wkey;172(7) — Costs—Right to.
Where it is shown that the seized debtor fraudulently covered his property so as to prevent a certain judgment from being executed, such seized debtor will not be entitled to attorneys’ fees as damages in suing out an injunction to prevent the seizure and sale of property alleged by him to have been illegally seized by his judgment creditor.
Appeal from Twelfth Judicial District Court, Parish of De goto; John H. Boone, Judge.
Action by Joel Phillips against W. M. Thompson. Prom the judgment, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Elam & Lee, of Mansfield, for appellant. Parsons & Coolc, of Mansfield, for appellee.

Opinion:
PROVOSTY, J.
A seizure having been levied, plaintiff enjoined it, on the ground that the objects seized were attached to a farm and could not legally be seized separately from the farm, and that, moreover, some of them were exempt from seizure under the homestead law; and plaintiff claimed $150 damages for the illegal seizure. Since the appeal was taken the plaintiff in execution has received payment of his judgment from Mr. Lee, one of the attorneys of the plaintiff in injunction, and transferred the judgment to Mr. Lee, and authorized the seizure to be released, so far as he, the seizing creditor, is concerned. If this payment has been made by defendant in execution or for his account, and the judgment has, as a consequence, ceased to operate as a judgment, the case no longer comes within the jurisdiction of this court, but that of the Court of Appeals. We have therefore to transfer it to that court; but, should it be made to appear, on application for a rehearing, that the said payment was not made by defendant in execution or for his account, the case will be reinstated for further consideration.
It is therefore ordered that this case be transferred to the Court of Appeals for the parish of De Soto; the costs of this court to .be paid by appellant.
SOMMERVILLE, J., concurs.