Case Name: John Pasley vs. Ann McConnell et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1886-05
Citations: 38 La. Ann. 470
Docket Number: No. 9568
Parties: John Pasley vs. Ann McConnell et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 38
Pages: 470–476

Head Matter:
No. 9568.
John Pasley vs. Ann McConnell et al.
Appellants have a right to join in one motion and in one bond, when the suit is a unit and one judgment only is rendered in it.
A bond conditioned for an amount ample enough to cover costs, and which is that fixed by the court in the order granting the appeal, is sufficient, to support a suspensive appeal taken from a judgment in a petitoiy action, where the property in dispute it? under sequestiation in the custody of the sheriff, and no money claim is allowed h.v the court.
A bond of appeal need not ho signed by appellants, or by any one for them.
In an action by a judgment debtor to annul a sheriff’s sale of his property seized under a judgment against him, the adjudicated cannot question his original title, because that would destroy the sole foundation of his own.
When property has been sold in execution of a judgment during the pendency of a devolutive appeal, the subsequent reduction of the amount of the judgment by the appellate court has no effect upon the validity of the title acquired at the sale, even if the pur chaser he the judgment creditor. The latter is only hound to restore the excess of the price which may have been applied to her original j.udgment.
The non-payment of accrued taxes does not destroy the validity of the adjudication.
The rule of Art. 684, O. P. prohibiting sale unless the price bid exceed prior mortgages and privileges, applies exclusively to special or conventional mortgages.
The mortgage certificate in this case showed no conventional mortgages or privileges exceeding the hid.
The registry of seizure of immovable property in New Orleans, under Act 180 of 1857, oper-* ates merely as a substitute for actual seizure and possession by the sheriff, and has nothing to do with the establishment or notice of a privilege. The privilege resulting from such seizure arises not from its registry, hut from its actual continuance as a subsisting seizure.
When a prior special mortgage has been cancelled and erased from the records prior to the sale, in pursuance of a final judgment to that effect by a court of competent jurisdiction, and does not appear on the mortgage certificate read at the sale, the judgment debtor cannot, long afterwards, claim the nullity of the sale on the ground that the price bid did not exceed the amount of such cancelled mortgage-
APPEAL from tlie Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. . Tissot, J.
W. 8. Benedict for Plaintiff and Appellee.
,T. Magioni and J. Timony for Defendants and Appellants :
I.
Where appellants were not condemned to pay any sum of money, or deliver any property, the bond need only be to cover costs. 30 Ann. 801.
Where an appeal is taken from a judgment, and the property is in tlie bands of the officer of the court, under an orderissued on the petition of plaintiff and appellee, a bond fixed by the judge for an amount to cover costs is suspensive. 7 IN. S. 352; 10 Ann. 345; 27 Ann. 231, 685.
Bat where tlie appellant has complied with the judge’s order and given bond in the sum fixed, if the bond is insufficient for a suspensive appeal, still it is good for a devolutive appeal. 15 Ann 333.
Where the certificate of the clerk is in the usual and proper form, and the appellee finds that the evidence, wliicb is necessary to him, is not in the record, he should have suggested a diminution of the record and called for a certiorari. 27 Ann. 444.
Where the ground is that the appeal bond is not conditioned as law directs, without setting forth the particular defects contemplated by appellee, that is not sufficient. 17 Ann. 78.
II.
A judicial declaration made by a party, that certain property did not belong to Mm, will be estopped from claiming ifc, when it is afterwards decreed that the property did belong to Mm, and that be was only screening it from Ms creditors by means of simulated sales. 32 Ann. 979.
Where a party shows a judgment, execution and deed of sale, or proces verbal of sale, it is grima facie evidence of a valid alienation, and the party attacking the sale must show ' the forms of law have not fieen fulfilled. 19 L. 307.
When a party appoints an appraiser at a sheriff’s sale, be cannot afterwards be beard to controvert the proceeding to which he had given his assent. 3 Ann. 453; 27 Ann. 314.
Where a party has directed the shoriff to sell the property in block, that is more than the appointment of an appraiser; it gives to the execution sale the force and effect of a voluntary sale. GL."
A sale of property under execution, on a judgment from which no suspensive appeal has been taken, will divest the title of the owner, though the judgment he afterwards reversed. 5 IN'. S, 214; 1 B. 94; 2 Ann. 221; 15 Ann. 99; 25 Ann. 515.
The validity of a sheriff’s sale is not affected by tlie fact that the accrued taxes on tlie property conveyed by the deed bad not beeu paid. 29 Ann. 211.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Bermudez, O. J.
Tlie appellee claims that the appeal should be dismissed, because:
1. The defendants have joined in one motion and given one bond only;
2. The bond is not properly conditioned;
3. The bond is insufficient in amount;
4. The bond is not signed by tlie appellants, or either of them, or by attorney. .
i.
The suit is for the recovery of certain real estate and the revenue thereof.
The property in dispute was sequestered and is still in the sheriff's custody.
The recovery is asked contradictorily with the several defendants against whom, without any discrimination, judgment was rendered in plaintiff's favor, without passing on his money demand, which was reserved.
There is but one petition and one prayer, one substantial defense although there be several answers, one judgment only was rendered.
It is not perceived why all the defendants, who are alike dissatisfied with the finding against them, should not, by one and the same motion, appeal from it and, in pursuance of the order of court allowing the appeal, furnish but one bond, for the amount prescribed.
The law does not provide that this shall not be done and the court is impotent to establish prohibitions where none has been imposed.
The bond is in terms sufficient to recover in case of affirmance of the judgment appealed from as well against the appellants as against their surety. Succession of Clark, 30 Ann. 801.
II and III.
It cannot be required that the bond be given under the provisions of art. 577, C. P., although the judgment appealed from decree the delivery of real estate. The reason is obvious : that the property is not in the possession of the defendants, but in the custody of the law. The sheriff holds it and collects its revenues for account of the party or parties who may be ultimately adjudged entitled thereto.
In such instances, it has been repeatedly held, that a bond for costs is sufficient. This is the more so, where the order allowing the appeal fixes the amount of the bond, the law being silent as to it, and the bond is furnished exactly in accordance with the terms of the order. 30 Ann. 801.
IV.
It is unnecessary that an appeal bond be signed by the appellant. The bond in this case ivas, however, signed for the appellants, whose names are written at foot thereof, by one of their counsel, who so attests expressly.
The motion to dismiss is overruled.