Case Name: E. W. Huntington vs. Jacques Bordeaux. Pascal Lestelle, Warrantor
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1890-04
Citations: 42 La. 346
Docket Number: No. 10,476
Parties: E. W. Huntington vs. Jacques Bordeaux. Pascal Lestelle, Warrantor.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 42
Pages: 346–350

Head Matter:
No. 10,476.
E. W. Huntington vs. Jacques Bordeaux. Pascal Lestelle, Warrantor.
The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over a controversy between a defendant, calling liis vendor in warranty, in a petitory action, when defendant avers in his answer that the property from which plaintiff seeks to evict him, is worth more than $2000, and ho asks judgment eventually against his warrantor for that sum.
A judgment rendered, declaring a surety good and solvent and allowing an appellant to furnish a new bond, can not bo reviewed on a motion made in the appellate court to dismiss the appeal taken from the judgment on the merits of the controversy.
Such first judgment remains undisturbed until reversed on appeal therefrom.
A sheriff’s adjudication of real estate must be recorded in the conveyance oilier in order to bind third parties.
A transfer of the property thus adjudicated by the defendant to a party, not notified of the adjudication by such registry, conveys the property to the purchaser. .
A plaintiff in a petitory action against one in possession can recover only on tlie strength of his title and not on the weakness of that of his adversary.
APPEAL from the Oivil District Court, Parish of Orleans. J.
Octave Morel and Horace L. Dufour for Plaintiff and Appellee.
J. H. Ferguson and A. Brieugne contra.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bermudez, O. J.
The plaintiff moves the dismissal of this appeal on the following grounds, viz:
1. The value of the property in dispute is less than $2000 and this-court has no jurisdiction ratione materise.
2. The bond furnished originally in tb£ court a gua was insufficient - for a suspensive appeal, and said court was without power to allow a new bond.
I.
The action is petitory in. character. The petition states the value of the property to be $1200; but the answer sets it at $2500.'
After asserting the validity of the title, the defendant called in his vendor in warranty, asking a judgment against him eventually, for $2500.
By its judgment, the lower court evicted defendant and condemned the warrantor to pay $1200.
The defendant did not appeal, but the warrantor has. The effect of such appeal, as far as the plaintiff is concerned, need not be considered presently, except to note that the plaintiff has an interest'at stake, and therefore to seek the dismissal.
The matter at issue between the defendant and the warrantor, appellant, on which the lower court passed, and which comes up by the appeal, is the amount claimed from the warrantor, namely, $2500.
By the pleadings between the defendant and the warrantor, the case was made appealable, and the judgment in the issue between them could have been appealed from by either or both.
The value of the property claimed is no factor in the examination of the first ground of the motion to dismiss. It may acquire significance on the merits of the controversy; but only if it be true that the plaintiff has a good title to the revendicated property, for then the defendant, being evicted, would be entitled to recover from his vendor at least for the value of the property paid to him.
It is evident that, as the pleadings stand, between the defendant and the warrantor, who is the appellant, this court could, circumstances justifying, render a judgment for the amount claimed by the former, on his call in warranty, from the latter, viz-: $2500.
The first ground is therefore untenable.
II.
Having jurisdiction over the matter in dispute, this court has authority to inquire into the merits of the second ground, relied on for the dismissal of the appeal, which relates to the insufficiency of the bond furnished originally, and to the lack of power in the judge to .allow another one to be given in place.
The record shows that the plaintiff and the defendant have, in a joint motion in the court a qua, moved to dismiss the appeal granted, on the grounds of the insufficiency of the surety and bond, contending that the original surety being insufficient in amount, the court had no authority to allow the warrantor and appellant to furnish another.
The District Court held that the surety was good, and that it had •authority to act as it did.
No appeal has been taken from that judgment.
Its correctness can not be tested by the motion to dismiss made in .this court, and now under consideration.
It will remain undisturbed until reversed on appeal.
The motion is denied.