State ex rel. Zeigler v. Taylor

• Decision Date: 01 May 1894
• Docket Number: 11,552
• Citation: 15 So. 407,46 La.Ann. 932
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE EX REL. SAMUEL J. ZEIGLER v. S. L. TAYLOR, JUDGE OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PARISH OF CADDO

15 So. 407

46 La.Ann. 932

STATE EX REL. SAMUEL J. ZEIGLER v. S. L. TAYLOR, JUDGE OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PARISH OF CADDO

No. 11,552

Supreme Court of Louisiana

May 1, 1894

Rehearing refused.

APPLICATION for Mandamus.

Land &amp Land, Attorneys for the Relator.

Respondent Judge, in propria persona.

OPINION

WATKINS, J.

The object of this application is to coerce respondent to grant relator a suspensive appeal, grounded on the judgment and decree in the proceedings in the court of the respondent which are thus described in the relator's petition, viz.:

That in certain proceedings, in respondent's court, in December 1892, relator obtained judgment granting him a respite of one and two years.

That recently several persons, claiming to be creditors of his, obtained rules against him, under the provisions of Act 134 of 1888, in which they aver his failure to make payments to them in conformity to the terms of said respite, and pray that he show cause why the judgment decreeing such respite should not be vacated and annulled, and why he should not forthwith make a cession of his property to his creditors.

That in his answer to said rules he set up, inter alios, the unconstitutionality of the Act of 1888.

That on trial of said rules judgments were rendered making same absolute, and decreeing that the judgment granting the respite be vacated and annulled; that he forthwith make a cession of his property to his creditors, and that a provisional syndic be at once appointed, and the clerk of court be directed and required to convoke a meeting of his creditors.

That immediately thereafter -- on the following day -- he applied to the respondent for an order of appeal, suspensive and devolutive, made returnable to this Court according to law, the amount in dispute as well as the fund to be distributed exceeding two thousand dollars.

That the respondent declined his application, making thereon the following endorsement, viz.:

"I decline to grant a suspensive appeal from the judgment rendered in this case on the authority of the case of State ex rel. Levy & Son vs. Ellis, Judge, 40 An. 818, but am willing to grant a devolutive appeal."

The respondent's return is in substance, the same as the aforesaid endorsement.

An examination of our opinion in the Levy case discloses its complete analogy to the case under consideration in every essential particular, and a close observance of the...