The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1849-02-22

the Judge could legally render judgement at cham
Beers hs judgement debtor who has pointed to the
ohenll 10 De sezed working animals plantation,
sesopped from afterwards directing that such animals
they attached Whena T. fne enjoned tke de
fendant Injunction may insist that the evidence shall
will not dissolve Bjunciions when the facts show that
the party would be Immediately entitled to resort to the
of the proceedings or from evidence legally admitted
under the pleadlngs or received without objection.
L. d. DORSEY Us. HILLS L.....AppeaL from the late
Ninth District Court, Parish Of Carroll. - No 2lS in
the Supreme Court KING, j.. Per curfam: motion
has been made TO dismiss the appeal this case on the
ground that was taken by motion open Court at term
SUBSEQUENT to that at which the judgement rendered
Acts 1913, p. 40.
1t appears that the tried at the November term
ut 1874 but not then determined After the adjourn
men OF the Court the Judge prepared and signed decree
which was not spread upon the minutes until the
SUNG term In April, l845, when motion for a trial
made which being overrued an appeal was taken NV
motion. The Judge could render judgement in a con-
testaon of this kind chambers and the decree signed Inv
him during vacation, acquired force SUCH until was
entered upon the records c. p SAB, 544. At the term
when this was DONE the appeal taken by motion The
appellant within the provisions of the act of 1874 The
motion to dismiss is therefore oyerruled
Upon the merits the plaintiff enoined the execution of
writ off. ia. on two grounds LIST, That the advertisement
OF the property illegal because made by person not a
horlzed to perform the and because the property was
not described with sufficient accuracy. And 3D. Because
the judgement on which the writ issued should have been
The objection to the authority of the who adver-
tsed the sale unf0unded The advertisements were
made and posted by the sheriff The property seized
described the advertisements twelve good work horses
we concur IN opinion with him. there being evidence
showing that they possessed qualities which required
specific designation. The District Judge also considered
that the plaintiff had failed TO prove the alleged credit and
his conclusion supported by The record But he sustained
the Injunction Two grounds urged in plaintiff petit
uon-ist That working animals cannot be seized separately
from the plantation to which they attached. 3D. That
the advertisements ali posted up the village
ana not at three different points in the parish.
As regards the first gOund appears have escaped
notice OF the District Judge that the plaintiff himself pointed
out to the Sheriff the property seized and could there
fore have AIDE the objection to the legality of the
which has been urged in his behalf.
The evidence relation to the second ground objected
to- and bill of exceptions taken the opinion of the Judge
reviewing it. The evidence clearly nadmissbe under
the peadngs The specific objections to the advertisements
and that the description of the property indefinite To
these allegations the proof should have been confined
Iardy Us: leglse l.. r. 220. No complaint made
that they had not teen posted at the proper places
the facts show that the party would be Immediately entitled
TO resort 10 the remedy but such facts appear
upon the face OF the proceedings from evidence legally
admitted under the pleadIngs received without objection
plaintiff originally, it obvious that the defendant could
have emeded the EFFECT by giving the sale the publicity
which 1t commended the law requires The defendant has
been unnecessarily lmpeded in the execution of his judge
The judgement OF the District Court therefore reversed
and ordered that the Injunction issued in this case be dis
solved and that the defendant Hills from the plain
tiff, ZachaTah IL Dorsey, and his surety r. " Davis in
the amount of the judgement enioined and that plaintiff
costs of both courts.
l.. Selby for plaintiff and appellee Browder for defend
ants and appellants Conclusion IN our neItl W.