Williams v. Coleman
| Decision Date | 10 April 1930 |
| Docket Number | 2686 |
| Citation | 13 La. App. 220,127 So. 755 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. COLEMAN ET AL |
Appeal from the Second Judicial District Court, Parish of Claiborne. Hon. John S. Richardson, Judge.
Action by W. A. Williams against John W. Coleman, as sheriff, et al.
There was judgment for defendants and plaintiff appealed.
Judgment dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
T. H McEachern, of Homer, attorney for plaintiff, appellant.
William C. Boone, of Homer, and J. Rush Wimberly, of Arcadia attorneys for defendants, appellees.
In this action plaintiff, W. A. Williams, alleged that certain real estate owned by him had been seized by John W. Coleman sheriff, in execution of a judgment rendered in the cause of J. L. Burdine vs. W. A. Williams (plaintiff here) and W. M Smith, and that the property had been advertised for sale. He further alleged that the judgment was null and void for the reasons that it was obtained on insufficient evidence, without the knowledge of plaintiff, W. A. Williams, through fraud and misrepresentation, and on evidence that was false and untrue, and that, in order to conserve his rights, it was necessary that a writ of injunction should issue restraining the sale. He further alleged that he had been compelled to employ an attorney at an expense of $ 75, and plaintiff prayed for the issuance of a rule nisi against J. L. Burdine and the sheriff to show cause why a writ of injunction should not issue, and that on final trial the judgment be annulled, and that he have judgment against defendants for $ 75, damages for the illegal issuance of the writ of execution, and maintaining the writ of injunction.
The rule nisi was issued and a preliminary injunction granted, and defendant answered, admitting that the property seized was owned by Williams, the seizure of the same by the sheriff, under execution issued on a judgment held by Burdine against Williams and Smith, and that it had been advertised for sale, and otherwise denied plaintiff's allegations.
On trial judgment was rendered rejecting plaintiff's demands and he appeals.
The judgment for $ 90.66 was rendered on default under the provisions of Act No. 47 of 1922, providing for the method of procedure in district courts in cases in which the district courts have concurrent jurisdiction with justice of the peace courts, and defendant did not have any right of appeal from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Franzen v. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co.
...under the Liability Act until death or remarriage of the plaintiff is erroneous. Laurent v. Dendinger, 13 La.App. 234, 126 So. 600, 127 So. 755. A proper judgment is for the payment of these benefits for the full period of 300 weeks. Smith v. Samuel T. Gately Marble & Granite Works, La.App.......
-
Strickland v. W. HORACE WILLIAMS COMPANY
...under the Liability Act until death or remarriage of the plaintiff is erroneous. Laurent v. Dendinger, 13 La.App. 234, 126 So. 600, 127 So. 755. A proper judgment is for the payment of these benefits for the full period of 300 weeks. Smith v. Samuel T. Gately Marble & Granite Works, La. App......
-
McCaskill v. Lyon Lumber Co
...La.App. 416, 127 So. 40; Oliphant v. Louisiana Long Leaf Lbr. Co., 7 La.App. 521; Laurent v. Dendinger, Inc., 13 La.App. 234, 126 So. 600, 127 So. 755, and Keyhea Woodard-Walker Lbr. Co., supra. There is no doubt that mere separation cannot defeat a claim of a widow, but where, in such case......