· 10/15/1906

Conery v. His Creditors

Citations

118 La. 161
42 So. 760
1906 La. LEXIS 846

Syllabus

1. Insolvency — Rights oe Insolvent — Choice of Syndic. An insolvent, who makes a surrender of his property in insolvency, surrenders it to his creditors for administration by them for their own use and benefit through the court. Any interest which he might have in the property and in its administration is subordinated to the paramount rights of the creditors. He reserves no right (and the law accords him none) in the selection or choice of a syndic. Questions on that subject concern the creditors alone. TEd. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 28, Insolvency, §§ 56-60.] 2. Same — Appointment of Successor to Syndic — Appeal—Parties Entitled. The definitive syndic of Edward Conery, Jr., first elected, having been removed, a meeting of creditors was held for the purpose of selecting his successor. Three persons contested for the position. The district court having declared one of them to have been duly elected, the other two appealed to the Supreme Court. On appeal the court reversed the judgment, declaring that there had been no election, and remanded the cause, with orders to select a syndic according to law. On the return of the case the parties who had contested the election applied as creditors to be appointed syndic. The court rejected both applications and appointed the sheriff syndic, under section 1810, Rev. St., and both appealed. Their appeals were both dismissed, and not renewed during the year for' a devolutive appeal. The insolvent having been' interdicted after his insolvency, his curator obtained a devolutive appeal from the judgment appointing the sheriff as syndic, and on his prayer the parties whose appeals had been dismissed were cited on the appeal of the curator. Held, that the curator had no legal standing to question the judgment appealed from, he could not champion the rights of the parties whose appeals had been dismissed, and they themselves had exhausted their right to question the judgment appeale

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

noting that courts in this Circuit typically decline to grant preliminary injunctions in the face of unexplained delays of more than two months
holding a “contract’s ambiguity” precluded plaintiff from establishing likelihood of success on the merits
dismissing claims under California law and granting leave to replead under New York law
noting, in the preliminary injunction context, that “it is well established that a court must consider a plaintiff’s delay in seeking relief when analyzing whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of relief.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
“[I]f a party fails to show irreparable harm, a court need not [ ] address the remaining elements.”
courts “must consider a plaintiff’s delay in seeking relief when analyzing whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Nicholls

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.