W. L. Nelson & Co. v. Adolphe Rocquet & Co.

Citations

• 123 La. 91
• 48 So. 756
• 1909 La. LEXIS 678

Syllabus

<p>1. Receivership Proceedings.</p> <p>A creditor instituted proceedings to have a receiver appointed.</p> <p>% Application eor Receiver.</p> <p>The board of directors passed a resolution favorable to the application. The corporation filed an answer praying for the appointment.</p> <p>.3. Receiver Appointed.</p> <p>The receiver was appointed.</p> <p>.4. No Appeal Taken.</p> <p>The president prayed for a new trial, which was refused. Testimony was taken and application heard. The application for a new trial was refused.</p> <p>No appeal was taken, and no attack in the pleadings was made subsequently to have the .appointment vacated and the order of appointment recalled and annulled.</p> <p>5. Receivers (§ 58*) — Appointment Ex Proprio Motu — Vacation.</p> <p>Testimony on new trial had passed out; i. .e., served its purpose.</p> <p>The court, stating that an error had been committed, and referring to the testimony previously taken on the application for a new trial ex proprio motu, recalled and discharged the judgment previously rendered appointing a receiver.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Receivers, Dee. Dig. § 58.*]</p> <p>.6. Judgment (§ 381*) — 'Vacation Ex Proprio Motu.</p> <p>A judgment or decree cannot ex proprio motu be annulled in any material respect, much less can it be treated as an absolute nullity, the court having jurisdiction, and all the proceedings having been conducted contradictorily up to and including the judgment.</p> <p>LEd. Note. — For other cases, see Judgment, Cent. Dig. § 725; Dec. Dig. § 381.*]</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>