Case Name: Cass & Dowling v. L. S. Rouark-J. A. O'Brien, Intervenor
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1873-04
Citations: 25 La. Ann. 353
Docket Number: No. 2789
Parties: Cass & Dowling v. L. S. Rouark — J. A. O’Brien, Intervenor.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 25
Pages: 353–354

Head Matter:
No. 2789.
Cass & Dowling v. L. S. Rouark — J. A. O’Brien, Intervenor.
■Where the plaintiff, in a suit against D, seized certain bales of cotton by attachment, in the hands of A, to whom the cotton had been shipped, and A intervened, and alleged he had privilege on said cotton for advances to make it and for charges pad on the same, which was in his possession, and D bonded the property after the intervention of A;
Held — That the intervention and third oppositi )n could not be excepted to as premature. The intervention could not be considered as dismissed by the bonding. The bond remained in lieu of the property seized and released.
The intervention could only be made while the suit was pending; and there is no good reason why the third opposition should not be made at the same time, in order that the relative rank of the contesting creditors should be settled in one suit.
APPEAL from the Sixth District Court, parish of Orleans. Oooley, J.
MoQloin & Kleinpeter, for plaintiffs and appellees. Boselius <& Philips, for intervenor and appellant.

Opinion:
Howe, J.
The plaintiffs seized certain cotton by attachment. O'Brien came in by way of third opposition, claiming a privilege on the cotton and its proceeds. The plaintiffs filed many exceptions to the right of the opponent to come in, of which the court below sustained one, namely, that the opposition was premature. The opponent appealed.
The judge below may have erred in the reasons he gave, and yet his judgment be practically correct.
It appears by the record, that the defendant in the suit bonded the cotton attached, and it was released to him. The bond was left to respond to the plaiutiffs' rights, but the opponent could take no advantage of it. He could, have no privilege on the bond, nor any proceeds which might be realized by the enforcement of its obligations. He never seized the cotton himself. From the moment that the cotton went out of court his opposition perished.
Judgment affirmed.