Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

13 La. Ann. 374

Rooks v. Williams

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided July 15, 1858

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1858-07-15

<p>Allegations that a judgment was obtained through fraud and other ill practices, are too general to authorize the arrest of its execution.</p> <p>Where a judgment is sought to be executed after the person’s death, in whose favor it was obtained, it is not necessary that the /t. fa. should issue in the name of the deceased person’s legal representatives.</p> <p>Where a case is tried upon an exception alone, the allegations'in the petition are taken as truo, except where evidence has been admitted on the trial, which negatives the truth of those allegations.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1858-07-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently March 1965

4 state decisions

10185818601870188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Cole, J.

¶1This action is instituted to annul a judgment rendered in the District Court of Morehouse, in the suit of J. C. Williams v. Rooks & Douglas, which judgment was affirmed by the Supremo Court.

¶2The grounds of the petition will be considered in their order.

1. “ Because no legal citation was served on the defendant, Rooks.” It is a sufficient answer to this to state, that an answer was filed by Rooks and his co-defendant.
2. “No issue was joined, either legal or tacit.” This is contradicted by the answer of Rooks fy Douglas.
3. “ Because the judgment sought to be annulled was obtained through fraud and other ill practices on the part of /. C. Williams.” This allegation is too general to authorize the arrest of the execution of a solemn judgment.

¶3In the same petition plaintiff obtained a writ of injunction, based upon the following additional grounds :

1. “ That the fi. fa. improperly issued in the name of /. C. Williams, instead of his legal representatives.”

¶4This could not injure plaintiff, for he could have been relieved of all difficulty as to the legality of the execution, by paying the judgment to the administrator of J. C. Williams or to his legal representatives.

2. “ That the execution issued for the recovery of rent for an improvement on public land, which had not been in possession of plaintiff since February, 1855, and which land had been sold by the government of the United States to one Z. Mills.”

¶5This objection was one to be considered in the original suit, and is not a ground for an injunction.

¶6Without then taking into consideration the peremptory exception filed by defendant, we think that the injunction could have been dissolved.

¶7Plaintiff avers, that as the suit was tried on an exception alone, that all the allegations in his petition are to be taken as true.

¶8This is generally correct; but in this case evidence was admitted, which negatived the allegations in plaintiff’s petition.

¶9The injunction was dissolved with twenty per cent, damages; there is no error in the same.

¶10Judgment affirmed.

/13/laann/374 · .json · Public domain