Case ID: la_157/html/0315-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      LAND, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(102 So. 413)
    No. 24780.
    DYER v. MOUNTZ.
    (Dec. 1, 1924.)
    
      (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
    
    1. Appeal and error <@=863 — Only question, on appeal from order of sale in executory proceedings, is sufficiency of evidence to authorize order.
    Only question, on appeal from order of seizure and sale in executory proceedings, is sufficiency of authentic evidence to authorize order.
    2. Execution <@=276(2) — Validity of sheriff’s sale under writ in executory proceedings not affected by reversal of judgment on devolutive appeal.
    Validity of sheriff’s sale under writ of fieri facias in satisfaction of judgment, or under writ of seizure and sale in executory proceedings of court having jurisdiction, is not affected by reversal of judgment on devolutive appeal, which implies right to execution of judgment and obligation to refund.
    3. Appeal and error <@=115 — No appeal from fully executed order of seizure and sale.
    Order of seizure and sale, when fully executed, becomes functus officio, and not appealable.
    4. Appeal and error <@=863 — Validity of sale under order in executory proceedings not considered on devolutive appeal.
    Validity of sheriff’s sale under order of seizure and sale in executory proceedings cannot be considered on devolutive appeal from order, and defendant must be relegated to action of nullity pending on suspensive appeal.
    Appeal from First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo.
    Suit by F. L. Dyer against L. J. Mountz. From order for sale of land, defendant appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Wallace & Lyons, of Shreveport, for appellant. •
    W. M. Phillips, of Shreveport, for appellee.
   LAND, J.

Under executory process, the plaintiff caused to he seized and sold certain lots in the city of Shreveport, parish of Oaddo, owned by defendant. Defendant has taken a devolutive appeal from the executed order for the sale of the property, on the ground that he has not been legally cited, as a curator ad hoc was appointed by the court below to represent him in the executory proceedings, on the alleged insufficient allegation in the petition for the writ of sale “that defendant is temporarily out of the parish of Caddo, and has no agent or any legal representative in said parish, and no fixed place of residence, nor person living there competent to receive service of process.”

It appears, from an application in the record to consolidate the present suit with the suit of L. J. Mountz v. F. L. Dyer et al., 104 So. 123, No. 25900 on the docket of this court, that an action of nullity to rescind the sale made under the executed order in this case is now pending in the latter suit in this court on suspensive appeal. The application to consolidate these two suits, originally granted, has been set aside.

Defendant and- appellant must be relegated to his action of nullity in the latter suit. The only question presented for decision by an appeal from an order of seizure and sale in executory proceedings is whether there was sufficient authentic evidence before the district court to authorize the issuance of the order of seizure and sale. The validity of a sale made by the sheriff by virtue of a writ of fieri facias in satisfaction of a judgment, or by virtue of a writ of seizure and sale in executory proceedings of a court having jurisdiction, cannot be affected by a reversal of the judgment on a devolutive appeal. On the contrary, the taking of a devolutive appeal implies the right to have the judgment appealed from executed and the obligation to refund. Citizens’ Bank of Columbia v. Bellamy Lumber Co., 140 La. 497, 73 So. 308; Jefferson v. Gamm, 150 La. 372, 90 So. 682.

After an order of seizure and sale has been fully executed by the seizure and sale of the property, it becomes functus officio, and, as such order adjudicates nothing, no appeal is allowable from same.

For these reasons, we cannot consider in the present ease the validity of the sale made under the order.

The appeal is therefore dismissed at the cost of appellant. 
      
      158 La. —.