Case ID: la_19/html/0345-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Bullard, J.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PUMPHREY vs. PRESCOTT ET AL.
    Western Dig.
    September,1841.
    APpEAI ÍEOM THE COURT OP THE FIFTH DISTRICT POE. THE PARISH OF ST. MART, THE JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT PRESIDING.
    Appeal for delay, and judgment affirmed with the maximum of damages.
    The plaintiff obtained ah injunction to stay an execution is* sued on a judgment for $1745 78, Which the defendants had obtained against him, and Were proceeding to execute.
    The only question raised was as to the right of the clerk to endorse on the execution the description of the property mortgaged, when it had been left blank in the petition. There was judgment dissolving the injunction, with five per cent, damages and ordering the Seizure under execution to proceed. The plaintiff appealed.
    
      Anderson, for plaintiff, submitted the Case.
    
      7*. H. 4r Wm. 13. Lewis, contra.
   Bullard, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

The present appellees, Prescott and others, having recovered a jU(jgment against W. Pumphrey, the latter obtained an injunction to stay proceedings on an execution issued thereupon, oh the allegation, that although it was alleged in the original petition, that the debt sued for, was secured by mortgage, yet the property mortgaged was not designated, and the blank left in the petition was never filled up, yet the clerk undertook on. the back of the execution to point out, what property should be seized as mortgaged, consisting of a slave and some horned cattle. He denie's the authority of -th'e clerk, thus to designate property to be seized, and alleges, that he had other property, which he had offered to give up to the sheriff, to satisfy the execution. No evidence having been given on the trial in support of these allegations, and it appéaring that the'property first pointed out was in fact mortgaged, and that the plaintiff in injunction had no other property, the injunction was properly dissolved. The plaintiff has appealed evidently to gain time. The judgment of the District Court is therefore affirmed with costs, and ten per cent, damages on the amount of the .judgment enjoined.