Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Harrod v. Voorhies' Administratrix, 16 La. 254.

16 citing documents.

Mary Andree Peltier v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
-61: “Since an order of sale is not a judgment in the strict legal sense, Harrod v. Voorhies’ Administratrix, (1840), an action to annul is not governed by the procedure or prescription applicable to actions of nullity of judgments, now La.C.Civ.P.
Secor Bank v. Hackle 644 So. 2d 1138 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
An order of sale is not a judgment in the strict sense, (1840), and an action to annul it is not governed by the procedure or prescription applicable to action of nullity of judgments....
First Guar. Bk. v. Baton Rouge Petroleum Center, Inc. 529 So. 2d 834 La. 1988
Since an order of sale is not a judgment in the strict legal sense, (1840), an action to annul it is not governed by the jurisdiction or prescription rules applicable to actions of nullity of judgments.
Taylor v. Zibilich 508 So. 2d 840 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
256 (1858), (1840), discuss the distinction between judgment and order, holding executory process orders for seizure and sale not judgments, notwithstanding their appealability of right.
Reed v. Meaux 292 So. 2d 557 La. 1974
[6] Since an order of *561 sale is not a judgment in the strict legal sense, (1840), an action to annul it is not governed by the procedure or prescription applicable to actions of nullity of judgments, now La.C.Civ.P.
Tapp v. Guaranty Finance Company 158 So. 2d 228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
Day v. Fristoe, 7 Mart., O.S., 239; Wray v. Henry, 10 Mart., O.S., 222; Tilghman v. Dias, 12 Mart., O.S., 691; ; Tildon v. Dees, 1 Rob.
Myrtle Grove Packing Company v. Mones 76 So. 2d 305 La. 1954
3 Day v. Fristoe, 7 Mart., O.S., 239; Wray v. Henry, 10 Mart., O.S., 222; Tilghman v. Dias, 12 Mart., O.S., 691; Harrod v. Voorhies, Adm’x, ; Tildon v. Dees, 1 Rob.
Lacour Plantation Co. v. Jewell 173 So. 761 La. 1937
See, also, Harrod v. Voorhies’ Adm’x, ; Folger v. Roos, 40 La.Ann.
McCoy v. Hunter 120 So. 767 La. 1929
See, also, Harrod v. Voorhies’ Adm’x, ; Folger v. Roos, 40 La.
Jones v. Bouanchaud 103 So. 393 La. 1924
And the court said: "It is true that the defendant in the seizure might have appealed, the facts relied on being patent on the face of the record; but that an order of seizure and sale `is not a judgment, in the true and legal sense of the term, and possesses none of its features,' has long since been recognized by this court ( ), and that an appeal is not the only remedy is evident, since the law provides the remedy by injunction (Code Prac.
Bass v. Barthelemy 64 So. 126 La. 1914
1, p. 647, No. 1 et seq.; ; Ricks v. Bernstein, 19 La.
Hackemuller v. Figueroa 51 So. 207 La. 1910
It is true that the defendant in the seizure might have appealed, the facts relied on being patent on the face of the record; but that an order of seizure and sale “is not a judgment, in the true and legal sense of the term, and possesses none of its features,” has long since been recognized by this court (Harrod v. Voorhies’ Adm’x, ), and that an appeal is not the only remedy is evident, since the law provides the remedy by injunction (Code Prac.
Pons v. Yazoo & M. V. R. 47 So. 449 La. 1908
“Such a decree, then, can be viewed only as giving the aid of the officers of justice to execute an obligation which by law produces the effect of a judgment in relation to the particular property mortgaged.” Harrod v. Voorhies’ Administratrix, .
Huber v. Jennings-Heywood Oil Syndicate 35 So. 889 La. 1904
Harrod v. Voorhies’ Adm’x, ; Dodd v. Crain and Another, 6 Rob.
Mitchell v. Logan 34 La. 998 La. 1882
Harvard vs. Voorhies; 13 An.
Erwin v. Lowry 2 La. Ann. 314 La. 1847