Mitchell v. W.T. Grant Co.
United States Supreme Court
416 U.S. 600, 94 S.Ct. 1895, 40 L.Ed.2d 406 (1974)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
W.T. Grant Co. (Grant) (plaintiff) sold various appliances to Mitchell (defendant) on credit. Mitchell did not pay the full balance and Grant filed suit to recover. Under Louisiana law, Grant’s lien on the appliances would expire if Mitchell transferred possession of the appliances. A Louisiana statute called for sequestration of such property if the creditor claimed that the debtor could “conceal, dispose of, or waste the property or the revenues therefrom, or remove the property from the parish, during the pendency of the action.” The law provided that the sheriff would hold the property during the court proceedings. Grant’s credit manager signed an affidavit stating that Grant had reason to believe that Mitchell would somehow dispose of the appliances during the proceeding. The trial judge then ordered sequestration of the appliances, directing the sheriff to take possession without a hearing or notice to Mitchell. Mitchell appealed based on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972), which called for a hearing prior to sequestration.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (White, J.)
Concurrence (Powell, J.)
Dissent (Stewart, J.)
Dissent (Brennan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
