Burt v. Watson Oil & Gas Co
| Decision Date | 03 November 1933 |
| Docket Number | 4595 |
| Citation | 150 So. 425 |
| Parties | BURT v. WATSON OIL & GAS CO |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
R. H Lee, of Benton, for appellants.
James L. Dormon, of Shreveport, for appellee.
W. G Burt subscribed to the capital stock of the Bossier City Packing Company, Incorporated to the amount of $ 500, and gave his note in payment thereof. He failed to pay the note at maturity, and the company sued him thereon, in Bossier parish, and in due course judgment was rendered against him, which has become final.
The Watson Oil & Gas Company, of which it is alleged J. J. Watson is sole owner, sued the Bossier City Packing Company, Incorporated, on open account for $ 454.76, and secured judgment, which is now final.
The packing company only operated for a brief period. Its promoters became its chief executive officers, and, we learn from the pleadings, they closed the business down and departed for parts unknown, leaving their victims wiser, but poorer for their experience.
The Watson Oil & Gas Company caused execution to issue on its judgment against the packing company and thereunder seized the judgment the packing company held against Burt, and advertised it for sale.
The present proceeding was provoked by Burt. He attacked the validity of the judgment of Watson Oil & Gas Company against the packing company and prayed that it be decreed null and void for the following reasons, viz.:
1. That there was no legal citation of defendant in the suit.
2. That the return on the citation attempted to be served upon defendant in said suit is defective and incomplete, and therefore is insufficient as a basis on which to predicate a judgment.
3. That neither the petition, affidavit, citation and return thereon, nor the account sued on was offered in evidence, and the court was, therefore, without evidence to act on.
4. That the account sued on, to the knowledge of plaintiff, was not the account of the packing company, but was the personal and individual account of its officers.
5. That when the suit was filed against the packing company and judgment rendered therein, J. J. Watson, sole owner of Watson Oil & Gas Company, was indebted unto the packing company to the extent of $ 400 for stock in said company, and that if the account sued on be held to be a liability of said packing company, then there was legal set-off between said account and the amount due for the stock to the extent of $ 400.
6. That the said J. J. Watson received and accepted the certificate of stock as a credit against the account he had against the packing company and held same as such until the affairs of the packing company became involved to the extent that the stock was worthless, and then he attempted to enforce collection of the account in full.
A rule to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue was obtained and a hearing thereof set for December 31, 1931. No trial was had on this date. The matter thus remained until the latter part of the year 1932. A new fieri facias issued and new seizure of the judgment against the packing company was made. In the meantime W. G. Burt died. His widow and heirs, by supplemental and amended petition, made themselves parties to the suit, and reiterate and adopt all the allegations of the original petition. They secured issuance of a rule to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue to prevent sale of said judgment.
Defendant in rule, Watson Oil & Gas Company, filed several exceptions, including that of no right and no cause of action. The exceptions of no cause and no right of action were sustained by the district court and plaintiff's suit dismissed. They have appealed.
So far as the grounds of attack, Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6, on the judgment sought to be annulled, are concerned, these may be eliminated from consideration with the statement that they involve matters and questions of fact and law which were foreclosed by the rendition and finality of the judgment itself. The packing company alone could have urged the matters of defense embraced in these four charges. If this were not true, a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cloud v. Bushnell
...in defense to the original action. 49 C.J.S. "Judgments" § 414, p. 819; 30A Am.Jur. "Judgments", Section 863. See Burt v. Watson Oil & Gas Co., La.App. 2 Cir., 150 So. 425. With regard to the facts, the injunction suit was introduced in evidence in the present mandamus proceedings. The pres......