Case Name: FLORANCE vs. WILCOX
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1839-05
Citations: 14 La. 58
Docket Number: 
Parties: FLORANCE vs. WILCOX.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 14
Pages: 58–59

Head Matter:
FLORANCE vs. WILCOX.
Eastern Dist.
May, 1839.
AITEAIi FROM THE COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, JUDGE BUCHANAN PRESIDING.
Where the legality of issuing an order of seizure and sale had been passed upon, in an opposition made by the defendant, the court will take no further action on the matter, when brought up on a rule to show cause why the alias order of seizure and sale should not be set aside.
The plaintiff obtained an order of seizure and sale on several promissory notes, signed by the defendant, against five lots of ground, mortgaged to secure payment thereof, which order was opposed and enjoined at the instance of the defendant, on various grounds. A rule was taken on Wilcox to show cause why the injunction should not be dissolved; when, after hearing the parties, the rule was made absolute. After the lapse of ten days, the plaintiff obtained an alias order of seizure and sale.
The defendant took his rule on the plaintiff, to show cause, why the alias order of seizure and sale should not be set aside, alleging substantially the same grounds on which the injunction had been previously granted.
On hearing the parties, the rule was discharged, and the defendant appealed.
Josephs, for the plaintiff.
Mc Henry, for the appellant.

Opinion:
Eustis, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
This case comes before us on an appeal from an order of the District Court, discharging a rule taken by the defendant on the plaintiff, to show cause why the alias order of seizure and sale, issued in the case, should not be set aside.
The judge discharged the rule, on the ground that the matters embraced by it, had been already submitted by the party to the court, and acted upon. The legality of issuing the order of seizure and sale had previously been put at issue by the defendant, in a formal opposition, and the injunction, granted at the instance of the defendant, had been dissolved.
We think the judge did not err in discharging the rule.
The previous decision precluded any further action of the court, in relation to the matters set up in the rule, which were substantially those which were included in the defendant's previous opposition.
It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed, with costs.