Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

3 La. 524

Moore v. Jacobs

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided April 15, 1832

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1832-04-15

AFPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE PARISH AND CITV OF^NEW-ORLEANb. This was an action upon a promissory note, to which the defendant pleaded the following exception : “ That previous to the institution of the suit, he had obtained a stay of proceedings which was still in force.” It appeared, that the plaintiff, who was placed on the bilan, resided within the state, but out of the parish where the proceedings took place.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1847

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1832-04-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Martin, J.

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2The plaintiff is appellant from the judgment, by which the court sustained the defendant’s plea, and dismissed the petition, on the ground, that a stay of proceedings had been obtained by the defendant; and was still in force, at the time the petition was filed.

¶3The appellant in this court, has urged, that the first judge erred, as he (the appellant) was not made a party (to the proceedings on the surrender) according to' law, and is not therefore, bound by these proceedings.

¶4It appears, the plaintiff was duly placed on the insolvent’s schedule. He resides in the county of Attakapas, and the proceedings took place in the city of New-Orleans. The notary states in the preamble of the proces verbal of the creditors’ deliberations, that they have all been duly notified to attend the meeting, as well by personal summons, issued from the court and served upon each of them, by the sheriff of the parish of Orleans, as by public advertisements, inserted three times and more in the French and English languages, in two of the newspapers printed in the city.

¶5The act of 1817, § 8. 2 Moreauis Digest, 426, prescribes the mode of citing creditors, and the meeting before the notary. Those who reside in the parish, in which the meeting is to be *526held, are to be cited by process issued by the court, those who regjde jn any other parish, but within the state, by letter addressed to them by the notary, those who reside out of the state, by public advertisements.

¶6The appellant resides in the county of Attakapas, i. e. in another parish than that in which the meeting was to take , „ , , place. He was, therefore, entitled to notice by a letter, addressed to him by the notary. This doe's not appear to have been done. We are, therefore, bound to say, he was not cited, consequently, not made a party to the proceedings, and cannot be bpun(j thereby>

¶7It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the Parish Court be annulled, avoided and reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings according to law, the appellee paying costs in this court.

/3/la/524 · .json · Public domain