Mullins v. Hanneman
Citations
- 123 La. 643
- 49 So. 271
- 1909 La. LEXIS 760
Syllabus
<p>1. Execution (§ 171*) — Restraining Sam os Property Confusedly with Another s— Executory Process.</p> <p>Any feature in the proceedings for a judicial sale which will cause injury by deterring competition and bringing about insoluble complications is ground for injunction; and hence, where a vendor instituting executory process on a purchase note remaining unpaid seized and advertised for sale the land sold the vendee, together with a tract sold to another, the vendee could have the sale enjoined, since as the sale would have been void as to both tracts taken separately because of the want of fixed separate prices, and as to the tract not belonging to the vendee, as a sale of property of a third person, competition would have been prevented as no one would care to bid at such a sale.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Execution, Cent. Dig. §§ 497, 512; Dec. Dig. § 171.*]</p> <p>2. Execution (§ 171*) — Restraining Sale of Property Confusedly with Another’s.</p> <p>The vendee could not be required to receive the entire surplus from sale of the two properties as if belonging to him, since no one can be compelled to receive money as his own which he knows is not his own, especially as he might be put to the expense of arbitration or litigation in case the third person and he could not agree as to the amount belonging to the third person.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Execution, Cent. Dig. §§ 497, 512; Dee. Dig. § 171.*]</p> <p>3. Execution (§ 171*) — Restraining Sale of Property Confusedly with Another’s.</p> <p>The vendee could not have cured the nullity and rectified the situation by filing a waiver of the irregularity, as he could not have waived the irregularity as to the land not belonging to him and the sale would have still been void as to the whole, since a judicial sale of property in globo cannot be valid for part and null for part; there not being in such a case a fixed price for either of the parts separately.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For othe
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “It is well-settled that the ADEA does not allow plaintiffs to recover for emotional distress, pain and suffering, or any other non-economic damage.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Provosty
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.