Case ID: la-ann_5/html/0574-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Rost, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

D. C. Sittig v. James Morgan.
    Where a sheriff has made a seizure on two executions, and there was a prior judicial mortgage to which he applied a portion of the proceeds, the property seized not having sold for enough to satisfy the writs, the only interest the judgment debtor has is to see that the proceeds of the sale be applied to the executions. He cannot sue for the money.
    The principle that there can be no sale on aji.fa. unless the price bid exceeds the amount of prior mortgages, does not apply to judicial mortgages.
    
      APPEAL from the District Court of St. Landiy, Overton, J. This was an action brought against the sheriff for the misappropriation of the proceeds of the sale of the plaintiff’s property made on two executions. The property did not sell for enough to pay the two executions. The sheriff applied a portion of the proceeds to the payment of a prior judicial mortgage.
    
      Linton and Martel, for plaintiff. Swayze, for defendant.
   The judgment of the court was pronounced by

Rost, J.

We concur with the district judge in this case, that the plaintiff has no claim against the defendant. If it be true that the defendant had no right to apply the proceeds of the judicial sale of the two slaves seized to the oldest judicial mortgage existing upon them, and there were no privileges or conventional mortgages, those proceeds should have gone to the seizing creditors; and as they were not sufficient to satisfy the judgments under which the sale took place, the only right which the plaintiff can have is to see that they be thus appropriated; he cannot recover them himself unless he shows that those judgments have been satisfied. He alleges that the judicial sale was null because the price of adjudication was less than the amount of mortgages affecting the properly. We are of opinion that the rule does not apply to judicial mortgages; but if it did, the plaintiff has not made the purchasers parties to the suit, and has besides validated the sale by claiming the proceeds.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.