Case Name: OUACHITA NAT. BANK v. SHELL BEACH CONST. CO.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1920-11-03
Citations: 154 La. 709
Docket Number: No. 24201
Parties: OUACHITA NAT. BANK v. SHELL BEACH CONST. CO.
Judges: . PROVOSTY and O’NIELL, JJ., dissent, and O’NIELL, J., will hand down reasons.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 154
Pages: 709–716

Head Matter:
(98 South. 160)
No. 24201.
OUACHITA NAT. BANK v. SHELL BEACH CONST. CO.
(Nov. 3, 1920.
On the Merits, Oct. 22, 1923. Rehearing Denied Nov. 26, 1923.)
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
On the Merits.
1. Appeal and error <&wkey;l9 — No appeal from order of seizure and sale in executory proceedings after foreclosure and sale.
There is no right of appeal from an order of seizure and sale in executory proceedings after the mortgage has been foreclosed, the property sold, and the writ has become functus officio, since, when a judgment or order of seizure and sale has been executed, a reversal oh devolutive appeal will not authorize the undoing of what has been done in the execution of the judgment or order appealed from.
2. Appeal and error &wkey;>863 — On appeal from order of seizure and sale in executory proceedings, sole question is whether evidence authorized the fiat.
The only question that is brought up by an appeal from an order of seizure and sale in executory proceedings is whether the authentic evidence that was submitted to the judge was sufficient to authorize the fiat.
3. Appeal and error <&wkey;840 (2)— Question of jurisdiction cannot be urged on devolutive appeal from order of seizure and sale after execution of writ.
■ The question of jurisdiction is not an issue that can be urged in the Supreme Court on a devolutive appeal taken from an order of seizure and sale in executory proceedings after the writ has been executed.
Appeal from Seventeenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Vermilion; W. W. Bailey, Judge.
Action by the Ouachita National Bank against the Shell Beach Construction Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
Thomas E. Furlow, of New Orleans, for appellant.
Broussard & Samson, of Abbeville, for appellee.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
SOMMERVILLE, J.
The plaintiff and appellee moves to dismiss the devolutive appeal taken by defendant in this cause, which is an executory proceeding, on the ground that the defendant is without interest.
The plaintiff set forth that it proceeded against the defendant and the property formerly owned by it under executory process, as it had a right to do, although defendant had long since parted with title and possession of the property, and that, after executory process had issued, the defendant sued out an injunction to prevent further proceedings, which injunction was dissolved at defendant's cost; that no appeal was taken from that judgment, and the property has been sold in the proceeding.
The defendant evidently had sufficient interest in the suit for plaintiff to have made it a defendant in the cause, and the court cannot say at this time that it is not interested in appealing from the order directing that its property be sold.
The Constitution gives to all persons against whom judgments are rendered the right of appeal; and this court cannot take it from them.
Defendant is not alleged to have acquiesced in the judgment appealed from.
The motion to' dismiss the appeal is denied.
. PROVOSTY and O'NIELL, JJ., dissent, and O'NIELL, J., will hand down reasons.