Case Name: Heirs of Stafford vs. Henry Renshaw
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1881-04
Citations: 33 La. Ann. 443
Docket Number: No. 8199
Parties: Heirs of Stafford vs. Henry Renshaw.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 33
Pages: 443–446

Head Matter:
No. 8199.
Heirs of Stafford vs. Henry Renshaw.
On the Motion to Dismiss.
The case being fixed for trial on the merits in this Court, whether or not the bond is sufficient for a suspensive appeal, the Appellee has no interest to have the appeal dismissed as suspensive, inasmuch as the case would still remain in this Court on the devolutive appeal.
On the Merits.
A final decree of this Court must he executed by the Court a qua, in the manner ordered in the judgment, and the inferior tribunal has no authority to enquire into the legality of the mode of execution so decreed.
The plea of payment made hy the Appellees, is not supported by the evidence.
When the writ of injunction was not clearly abused, the defendant, on its dissolution, is only entitled to counsel fees in the way of damages.
APPEAL from the Twelfth Judicial District Court, parish of Bapides. Bowman, judge ad hoc.
Jas. Andrews, Jr., and W. F. Blackman for Plaintiffs and Appellees:
Appellee contends that a writ of seizure and sale cannot issue against the property of a Succession under administration, where plaintiff has obtained a judgment against the succession in an ordinary action. C. P. Art.; 1 An. 205; 2 L. 547; 12 An. 642; 3 IT. S. 498.
Plaintiff having elected to pursue the via ordinm'ia, cannot afterwards resort to the executory process to enforce the collection of a judgment recognizing his mortgage. 3 IT. S. 498; 31 An. 112.
Where the heirs are present or represented and in possession of the property, the writ of seizure should issue against them and not the executor, who has no seizin. C. P. —.
Bayne & Benshaw, J. G. White and B. J. Bowman for Defendant and Appellant:
The decree in 30 An. 853, directing the seizure and sale of the mortgage property herein is correct. 24 An. 383; 20 An. 311.
A final decree of the Supreme Court is to be executed in the manner directed by said. Court; it cannot he controlled by the District Court. 11 La. 366 ; 6 Rob. 92; 20 An. 223.
The writ herein issued on authentic evidence. C. P. 732. A mortgagee’s rights are not impaired, because a judgment reoognizing the validity of the mortgage and directing its enforcement by seizure and sale. 12 An. 592.
A judgment cannot be enjoined for causes, which might have been pleaded prior to judgment. 6 An. 282; 3 Rob 111: 12 An. 861 20 An. 551; 21 An. 464; 8IT. S. 513; 2 La. 182.
Tn an action of nullity, it must appear that plaintiff could not by reasonable diligence have sooner known matter relied on for relief. 3 An. 647; 6 An. 800; 1 Rob. 524; 14 An. 297; 18 An. 507; 12 An. 86; 15 An. 275.
Mere inferences from general statement of counsel’s opinion and conversations of clients with him are not evidence.
The judgment sought to be annulled liaving been rendered by Supreme Court cannot be annulled by District Court. 2 La. 15; C. P. 608,
Damages should be allowed on dissolution of the injunction. 23 An. 199; 12 An. 181; 3 An. 589; C. P. 304.
The injunction bond is a solidary obligation. 28 An. 676; 19 La. 497; 12 M. 81; 16 La. 173.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Bermudez, C. J.
The plaintiffs and appellees move to dismiss this appeal, because " the bond is for no amount fixed by the court, and not as is provided for by article 577, O. P., there being no order of the judge fixing the amount for a suspensive appeal; and the amount of the bond, in such a case, should have been for one-half over and above the judgment annulled."
This is a suit for the nullity of a judgment. It is coupled with an injunction to arrest the sale of the property under seizure. The District Court annulled the judgment and perpetuated the injunction. From this judgment the defendant appealed.
The order of appeal fixes the amount of the bond at $250 for a devolutive appeal, and • the bond furnished for such appeal is for that amount. The order does not fix any as the amount of the bond for a suspensive appeal, but merely directs that it be " according to law."
Had the injunction been dissolved, it would not have been difficult to ascertain the amount for which a bond for a suspensive appeal should have been furnished; but, as the injunction was perpetuated and the judgment about to be enforced was annulled, it is not easily perceived at once, for what amount the bond for a suspensive appeal should have been given, the order of appeal specifying none.
The condition of all appeal bonds is that the surety shall eventually satisfy, in the place of the principal, whatever judgment the appellate court may render against him.
Under any contingency such judgment, however adverse to the defendant, could only be, in the present case, one affirming the judgment of the lower court which annulled the judgment attacked, and perpetuated the injunction and condemned him to pay costs.
The amount of the bond in the case of a suspensive appeal from a judgment ordering the payment of money is fixed by Art. 575 C. P.
On the wild assumption that the costs in the case amounted to twenty-five hundred dollars, the bond given for a suspensive appeal, which is for four thousand dollars, would be amply sufficient. The lower court fixed the amount of the bond, in case of a devolutive appeal, at $250, which could only be for costs. It virtually fixed the same amount for the bond in ease of a suspensive appeal.
The case is before us, and is now to be decided on its merits. It is impossible to conceive of what use it would prove to the appellee to dismiss the appeal as far as suspensive, as the suit would still remain before us on the devolutive appeal.
Motion denied.