New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-04-23

tain defects in the animal. The court de
cided in favor OF plaintiff, on the grouni
| that though tie horse was not a crib-b bitter
as alleged, that the testimony showed ht
was baker.
In the case of the succession of j. Y
Egana, Judge Duvignaud has ordered, ad
judged and decreed that the plea of re.
by the Bank Of Louisiana, through its as
| signees, to the homologation of the final
| tableau, be maintained so far as regards
their demand to be paid their pro ra Ia in
the funds distributed by the syndics Of
Egana in their first and second tableaus.
1t is also ordered and decreed that this
tableau he so amended as to place on the
same the Bank of Louisiana for her pro
rata IN the amount now to be distributed.
ana that SAID tableau, so amended, be
duly approved and homologated, and the
funds distributed in accordance thereto.
SEVENTH DISTRICT COURT.
u. +. Perroux VS.. Pierre Lacoste.-This
SUIT was brought for executory process be-
iors Inc nve years necessary for prescription
nao run. The court ordered the process to
issue, but the defendant took suspensiye
appeal.
Inc order granting the appeal had its
erect until the twenty-eighih Of May, 1867,
when the decree of Supreme Court affirming
the order of seizure and sale was filed.
The defendant now mainly relies on the
prescription Of five years, which he says ac-
crued in his favor pending his appeal, and
Notwithstanding the suspensiye effect Of
that appeal.
The Judge reached the following conclu-
SONS: A suspensive appeal from an order
granting executory process taken before
any notice of demand had been served has
the effect of preventing the service of any
such notice, or even the issuance Of the no.
tice or Of any process whatever in the case.
The sheriff could not satisfy the defendant
that in three days he would proceed to
seize and sell when there was an order pro-
hibitory of any subsequent proceeding
whatever. The defendant cannot avail
himself of his own act arresting the action
Of plaintiff to have the delay thus caused
by himself counted in his favor. A num-
Der OF decisions, beginning with 16 La,
254. settle this principle. 1t is true that in
each OF these cases notice of demand had
been served. but the court does not refer to
this fact as being essential. IT it were so,
the rule would be a vain one, for it could
be defeated, las the defendant supposes he
has done in this case, by moving for an
appeal before service of any notice what
ever. The rule rests upon the broad foun-
dation that no one can avail himself of his
own wrong, his ewn abuse Of the right of !
obtaining judicial process.
The decision Of the Supreme Court to
the effect that the time for prescription
against Judgment was pending appeal |
does not apply to the question in this case. |
The reason of that decision obviously is |
that since none of the matters at issue N |
The appellate court can arise on the demand |
Tor a revival, the appeal does not prevent |
such suit. The suit for revival does not |
interfere with the jurisdiction of the appellate
court, and. therefore, the appeal is no ex-
,use for failure to bring the action, % |
An. 17G, 179.
Judge Collens concludes his decision rem
iering judgment dissolving Injunction, with |
$500 damages and two per cent additional
interest and costs.