Case ID: la-ann_27/html/0314-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Ludeling, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 4409.
    A. W. Walker v. C. S. Sauvinet, Sheriff, et als.
    The motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that there was no order of appeal came too late, said motion having been filed more than three days after the transcript was filed.
    The plea that the plaintiff is estopped from contesting the validity of the sale because he appointed an appraiser of the property sold is valid. He can not he permitted to avoid the responsibility of that act by stating that he did it under protest.
    APPEAL from the Fourth District Court, parish-of Orleans. Theard, J.
    
      T. & J. Bilis, B. K. Washington, for plaintiff and appellant. B. Bermudez, for James Welsh, defendant and appellee. B. Filleul, for Sauvinet, defendant and appellee. Homor & Benedict, for Southworth, recorder of mortgages, defendant and appellee.
   Ludeling, C. J.

The plaintiff sues to annul a sale of his property made under an order of seizure and sale against him, on various technical grounds.

The defendants filed an exception, alleging that the petition showed no cause of action, and that the plaintiff is estopped from contesting tie validity of the sale because he appointed an appraiser of the property sold; that he was in the parish and did not oppose the sale, and that he ratified the sale by authorizing his wife to claim the proceeds of the sale.

There was judgment in favor of the defendant, dismissing the suit, and plaintiff has appealed.

A motion has been made to dismiss the appeal on the ground that there is no order of appeal. The motion was filed more than three days after the transcript was filed. It came too late. 2 An. 138; 11 An. 613.

The plaintiff, when notifying the sheriff whom he had appointed as an appraiser of the property, stated that he made the appointment •under protest, alleging that there were informalities in the proceedings. We do not think he can thus avoid the responsibility of his act of appointing an appraiser.

We think the judgment of the lower court correct.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment be affirmed with costs of appeal.