Case Name: YATES v. MERRITT (BAKER, Intervener)
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1922-02-27
Citations: 151 La. 344
Docket Number: No. 25009
Parties: YATES v. MERRITT (BAKER, Intervener).
Judges: By the WHOLE COURT.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 151
Pages: 343–345

Head Matter:
(91 South. 759)
No. 25009.
YATES v. MERRITT (BAKER, Intervener).
(Feb. 27, 1922.)
(Syllabus by M&itorial Staff.)
1. Sales <§=>313 — Vendor’s lien lost If property purchased from vendee before seizure by vendor.
If property was purchased by third party from vendee before seizure thereof by vendor, the vendor’s lien was lost.
2. Appeal and error <§=>891 — Newly discovered evidence cannot be considered on appeal.
Newly discovered evidence cannot be considered on appeal; appellant’s relief being in a proceeding to annul the judgment.
Appeal from Third Judicial District Court, Parish of Claiborne; J. E. Reynolds, Judge.
Suit by G. L. Yates against Simms Merritt, in which R. D. Baker intervened as third opponent.' Judgment for opponent and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
T. H. McEachern, of Homer, for appellant. McClendon, Morelock & Seals and David Blackshear, all of Homer, for intervener Baker.
By the WHOLE COURT.

Opinion:
DAWKINS, J.
Plaintiff sequestered certain live stock and farm implements which he alleged belonged to defendant, and asserted a vendor's lien thereon. Thereafter, while the property was still under seizure, plaintiff and defendant executed what was termed a settlement, by which the latter purported to convey to the former the property so seized, but the suit was not dismissed. Subsequently the third opponent intervened and claimed the ownership of certain of the property, and the opposition alone was tried below. There was judgment in favor of the opponent, and plaintiff has appealed.
Opinion.
The issues of this case turn mainly upon questions of fact; that is, did the opponent actually purchase the property from the defendant before the seizure was made by the plaintiff? If so, then plaintiff's vendor's lien was lost and his suit must fail for he has seized the property of another.
It would serve no good purpose to review the evidence, but suffice it to say that, after careful examination of the record, we can see no cause to reverse the finding of the trial court. Counsel for appellant say in their brief that tjiey are now in possession of facts which would change the result, but we cannot consider such matters here. If a proper ease exists, relief might be had in a proceeding to annul the judgment.
Eor the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, at appellant's cost.