Opinion ID: 1942141
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Attachment

Text: Finally, defendant Hanagriff contends that his property was wrongfully attached by the plaintiff, and that he is entitled to have the attachment dissolved and to recover damages. Plaintiff based its demand for the writ of attachment on the contention that the defendants were about to dispose of their property, or give an unfair preference to other creditors, to the detriment of the plaintiff bank. C.C.P. 3541. Although the issue was contested at trial, the testimony to support the issuance of the writ of attachment was sparse. The attorney for the bank testified that the principal had made a certain arrangement with a creditor that would result in that creditor's obtaining a preference over the plaintiff of certain assets. The record is silent as to the source of the information, and as to the certain arrangement. As to the defendant Hanagriff, the substance of the testimony was that seven years before the filing of the suit, people at the bank had information that Hanagriff had purchased his stock with old cash money and the attorney had information that he would have converted the property to defeat us. The property was Mr. Hanagriff's home. The witness could not give the source of such information, and had no information that Hanagriff had committed any act which would lead anyone to believe he was about to sell or mortgage his home. There was no evidence adduced at the trial to indicate that Hanagriff participated in the daily operations of Rex Rice Company, or knew of or participated in any way in any effort of Rex Rice Company to place its assets beyond the reach of the plaintiff. The evidence is entirely insufficient to support the issuance of a writ of attachment, and it should have been dissolved. The defendant put on no evidence concerning damages from the attachment. Hanagriff was called on cross-examination by plaintiff, but did not testify concerning the attachment. The only effort by defendant's attorney toward dissolution of the writ was the inclusion of the demand for dissolution in Hanagriff's answer and the cross-examination of the bank's lawyer. We will award nominal damages for dissolution in the amount of $100.00. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is therefore affirmed and amended, awarding plaintiff, Louisiana Bank and Trust Company, Crowley, Louisiana, judgment against defendant, Matthew L. Hanagriff, in the sum of $40,000, and there is further judgment in favor of Matthew L. Hanagriff, plaintiff in reconvention, and against Louisiana Bank and Trust Company, Crowley, Louisiana, defendant in reconvention, dissolving the writ of attachment and awarding plaintiff in reconvention damages in the sum of $100.00, all at the cost of defendant, Matthew L. Hanagriff. SANDERS, C. J., concurs with written reasons. BARHAM, J., concurs with reasons.