Case Name: In re MORGAN & CO., Inc. LUMBERMAN'S BANK & TRUST CO. v. DE RIDDER LIGHT & POWER CO.; SAME v. MORGAN & CO. et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1922-10-30
Citations: 155 La. 915
Docket Number: Nos. 25371, 25700
Parties: In re MORGAN & CO., Inc. LUMBERMAN’S BANK & TRUST CO. v. DE RIDDER LIGHT & POWER CO. SAME v. MORGAN & CO. et al.
Judges: By the WHOLE COURT.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 155
Pages: 916–938

Head Matter:
(99 South. 696)
Nos. 25371, 25700.
In re MORGAN & CO., Inc. LUMBERMAN’S BANK & TRUST CO. v. DE RIDDER LIGHT & POWER CO. SAME v. MORGAN & CO. et al.
(On Motion to Dismiss, Oct. 30, 1922.
On the Merits, Oct. 29, 1923. On Rehearing, March 8, 1924.)
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
On Motion to Dismiss.
1. Appeal and error &wkey;>365(I) — Court’s minutes held to show that order of appeal had been granted appellant.
Where a judgment creditor seized a light and power plant, and a third opponent intervened and sought to enjoin the sale claiming ownership, and defendant in execution made no appearance and judgment was rendered for plaintiff, an appeal of the intervener held not to be dismissed, as the minutes of the court showed that an appeal 'had been granted to such intervener, notwithstanding judgment was for “plaintiff” and appeal was granted “defendant.” .
On the Merits.
2. Injunction <&wkey;l69 — Motion to dissolve for falsity of allegations supporting writ should be treated as answer, or defendant should be directed to answer petition.
A motion to dissolve an injunction, on the ground of the falsity of the allegations to support the writ, should be referred to the merits and treated as an answer, or defendant should be directed to answer tlie petition as directed by the pleading statute.
On Rehearing.
3. Fraudulent conveyances &wkey;3299(10) — Sale of property of light and power company held a simulation as to judgment creditor. 1
Where a judgment creditor levied on the property of a light and power company as the judgment debtor, and a third party as alleged owner by conveyance sued out an injunction to restrain the seizure, and it appeared that such sale was put on record only 14 months after the execution thereof, and on the eve of suit against said light and power company, which still continued in possession, evidence held to show that the sale was a simulation and the injunction sued out by such third party could not be sustained. ' ' >
4. Injunction &wkey;>.l88 — Attorney’s fees cannot be allowed on dissolution of writ after passing on merits of suit.
Where, on rule to dissolve an injunction, the merits of the case have been submitted and the injunction dissolved only after passing on the merits, defendant in injunction cannot be allowed attorney’s fees--for the dissolution of the writ, since to do so would be to allow fees virtually for defending the suit on the merits, which is not permissible.
5. Fraudulent conveyances &wkey;»297 — Insolvency of debtor held sufficiently shown.
Where one who had purchased property of a light and power company under a simulated sale sought tó restrain a creditor of the power company from seizing its property, held, .that the insolvency of the power company had been sufficiently shown by showing an indebtedness, in view of Civ. Code, art. 1985, imposing burden on party denying insolvency to show property exceeding the indebtedness.
Appeal from Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Beauregard; Thos. F. Porter, Jr., and Jerry Cline, Judges.
Action by the Lumberman’s Bank & Trust Company against the De Ridder Light & Power Company, wherein Morgan & Co. intervened, consolidated with an action by Lumberman’s Bank & Trust Company against Morgan & Co. and others. Judgment for plaintiff in the case first mentioned, and intervener appeals, and for plaintiff in ¿he case last mentioned, and defendants appeal.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part ■in the case first mentioned,' and affirmed in the last mentioned case.
John W. Lewis, of Opelousas, and G. E. Gardiner, for appellant Morgan & Co.
Cline & Planche, of Lake Charles, and Ped C. Kay and Frank E. Powell, both of De Ridder (S.' W. Plauche, of Lake Charles, of counsel), for appellee.
By the WHOLE COURT.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
DAWKINS, J.
Lumberman's Bank & Trust Company obtained a moneyed judgment of several thousands of dollars against De Ridder Light & Power Company, and issued execution thereon seizing the light and power plant of said defendant. Morgan & Co. intervened and enjoined the .sale, claiming ownership of the property. De Ridder Light & Power Company (hereinafter called the Power Company) made no appearance. Lumberman's Bank & Trust Company (hereinafter called the Bank) filed a motion to dissolve the injunction upon the ground of the falsity of the allegations of the petition of intervention, pleaded the exception of no cause pf action, alleged the nullity of the transfer of the property by the Power Company to Morgan & Co., and reconvened for damages in the sum of $1,500. Morgan & Co., moved that this pleading be made to stand as an answer, which was denied; the ea^e was tried on its merits, and there was judgment in favor of the Bank, plaintiff in execution, and against Morgan & Co., intervener, dissolving the injunction, and for $750 damages as attorney's fees against it and the surety on the injunction bond.
The defendant in execution, the Power Company, made no appearance whatever.
A bond for appeal, suspensive and devolutive, was filed by ' Morgan & Co., and the transcript timely filed by it in this court.
Counsel for the appellee Bank has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that there was no order of appeal in favor of Morgan & Co.
We quote the relevant minutes of the court, as disclosed by the record, as follows:
"April 17, 1922.
"Lumberman's Bank & Trust Co. v. De Ridder Light & Power Company. No. 1347.
"From Beauregard parish.
"The court, nhaving previously taken this case under advisement, now rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff. See decree. Judgment read and signed."
"April 18, 1922.
"Lumberman's Bank & Trust Company v. De Ridder Light & Power Company. No. 1347.
"From Beauregard parish. Counsel for defendant moves for both suspensive and devolutive appeals to the Supreme Court. The court grants the appeals, returnable to the Supreme Court of Louisiana on or before May 30, 1922, upon appellant furnishing bond, if devolutive, in the sum ,of $250, and, if suspensive, in the sum of $14,000."
"April 25, 1922.
"Lumberman's Bank & Trust Company v. De Ridder Light & Power Company. No. 1347.
"From Beauregard parish.
"Counsel for Morgan & Company moves the Court to set aside the order of appeal previously granted herein on the ground that the suspensive appeal bond was excessive and not sanctioned by law. Owing to the fact that the suspensive appeal bond in this matter was improvidently fixed at $14,000, the previous order of appeal granted herein is amended by fixing the bond for suspensive appeal at $1,200. To which proceeding Counsel for the Lumberman's Bank & Trust Company objects."
(Underscoring of words by the court.)
The prayer of tbe petition of intervention and injunction was. for service upon the "plaintiff" and tbe sheriff, and not upon defendant in execution, and it was so served. There were, in reality, therefore, only two parties to the litigation, the Bank, plaintiff in litigation, and Morgan & Co., plaintiff iñ intervention, and each was defendant as to the other as to the demands made against it. As is seen from, the minute entry first above quoted of date April 17, 1922, judgment was rendered "in favor of plaintiff," the Bank, and the judgment itself reads:
" That there be judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the Lumberman's Bank & Trust' Company, and against the intervener, Morgan & Co., Inc., dissolving the injunction issued herein."
It, the judgment, was also for the sum of $750 against Morgan & Co., and the surety on the injunction bond, for costs, etc., "with reservation of plaintiff's right to sue for additional damages for additional attorney's fees if this judgment be appealed from."
There can be no doubt, therefore, that the "plaintiff" referred to in the minutes of April 17th, in whose favor the judgment ran, was the bank, and that the defendant who was condemned was Morgan & Co., reading the minutes and judgment together as they must be. Nor can there be any doubt that the only party cast with tight of appeal was Morgan & Co. Hence when the minute entry of April 18th was made by the clerk showing that "defendant moves for both suspensive and devolutive appeals," etc., it is perfectly, clear that it was on behalf of the only other party to the suit, Morgan & Co. All question on that point is removed by the minute entry of April 25th, in which "counsel for Morgan & Company moves the court to set aside" the order for 'the suspensive appeal as excessive, and the court reduced the amount of the bond for that appeal to $1,200.
We are clear that the party appealing, as disclosed by the whole record, was Morgan & Co., and that the order was asked for and granted in its behalf. Appellee had -already answered the appeal, and any doubt must be resolved in favor of the appeal.
The motion to dismiss is denied.