Court Opinion

ID: 7172787
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-24 16:28:11.515863+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:15:47.475640
License: Public Domain

ST. PAUL, J.
I concur for the reason that Dawson, the plaintiff in injunction, was (notwithstanding the pact de non alienando) a third possessor of the property seized. Bank v. Miller, 44 La. Ann. 199, 202, 10 South. 779. Even his assumption of the mortgage did not change his status as such; since this was not accepted, but ignored, by the mortgagee, who elected to proceed directly against the original mortgagor. 44 La. Ann. 206, 10 South. 779. He is not “the defendant” in the suit