28 La. Ann. 319 | La. | 1876
A. Boos & Co. obtained judgment against the Merchants’ Mutual Insurance Company. L. B. Cain became subrogated to the rights of Boos & Co.
Upon the judgment to which he was subrogated, Cain issued • execution, and the amount of the writ was paid to the sheriff.
The contest in the present case arises out of the following state of facts:
Plaintiffs had recovered two judgments in the Sixth District Court, one against Frank, Haas & Co. as a firm, and against the individual members thereof, viz.: Ferdinand Beer, Leon Haas, Jr., and Henry Boos, for the sum of fifteen thousand dollars. They had also a judgment against the firm of A. Boos & Co. for fifteen thousand dollars.
They issued & fieri facias against Frank, Haas & Co., and the individual members thereof. No fieri facias issued on the judgment against A. Boos & Co.
It was in the suit of the plaintiffs against A. Boos & Co. that tho Merchants’ Mutual Insurance Company were garnisheed, and the funds resulting from the judgment of Roos & Co. vs. the Merchants’ Mutual Insurance Company, and now in the hands of the sheriff, are now in conr tost, Cain claiming them by right of subrogation from Boos & Co., the plaintiffs claiming them under their garnishment.
Tho difficulty in the plaintiffs’ way is that no fieri facias had issued against Boos & Co. when the notice of garnishment and the interrogatories thereunder were served on the Insurance Company.
In the case of Raboteau vs. Valeton, 11 R. p. 218 (221), it was said: “ It seems to us clear that the proceedings to he had under the law of 1839 are the necessary consequences of the placing of a writ of fieri facias in the hands of the sheriff, and that the property and effects, or the sum
The same doctrine was announced in Simpson vs. Allain, 7 R. 500, and Matta vs. Thomas, 21 An. 58.
But plaintiff contends that Henry Roos was a member of tho firm of A. Roos & Co. as well as a member of the firm of Frank, Haas & Co., and that as execution issued against Frank, Haas & Co. the requisites of the law have been complied with. AVc do not agree with him. As regards Henry Roos, the partner in the house of Frank, Haas & Co., he was a stranger to the house of A. Roos & Co., and tho assets attempted to be seized in this proceeding belonged to the firm of A. Roos & Go., and not .to the individual members thereof. It was not, therefore, liable for the individual debt of the partners, no liquidation of their affairs having-been had.
Judgment affirmed.