¶1dissenting. The intervenor was the lessor of the plantation. Upon the crop made thereon and the movables used in growing it, she had a privilege superior to the plaintiffs, who furnished the supplies. It is true that the property seized by the plaintiffs was bonded, and that the intervenor went on the bond. Still the bond represents the property, and upon the property her lien and privilege, superior to the plaintiffs’,,is, I think, incontestible. I am, therefore, of opinion that the district judge erred in dismissing the intervention. I therefore dissent from the opinion just pronounced.
27 La. 239
Carroll v. Bridewell
Decided March 15, 1875
Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1875-03-15
<p>The intervention is dismissed. The intervenor has neither alleged nor proved that she is a creditor of the defendant, whose property was sequestered.</p> <p>If the intervenor hada lessor’s privilege, it should have been asserted before the sequestered property was released on bond. No fraud and collusion are shown between the plaintiffs . , . and the defendant.</p> <p>The intervenor can not urge irregularities in the suit, such as insufficiency of the bond or affidavit on which the sequestration issued.</p>
Decided 1875-03-15